P
LANT
S
CIENCE
Bulletin
Winter 2011 Volume 57 Number 4
In This Issue..............
PlantingScience continues to
flourish with its biggest session yet!
Details p. 129
Botany 2012 is coming to life & is
online at www.botanyconference.org.
Go to p. 178
Look what the American Journal of
Botany has in store....p. 160
From the Editor
Winter 2011 Volume 57 Number 4
PLANT SCIENCE
BULLETIN
Editorial Committee
Volume 57
Jenny Archibald
(2011)
Department of Ecology
& Evolutionary Biology
The University of Kansas
Lawrence, Kansas 66045
jkarch@ku.edu
Root Gorelick
(2012)
Department of Biology &
School of Mathematics &
Statistics
Carleton University
Ottawa, Ontario
Canada, K1H 5N1
Root_Gorelick@carleton.ca
Elizabeth Schussler
(2013)
Department of Ecology &
Evolutionary Biology
University of Tennessee
Knoxville, TN 37996-1610
eschussl@utk.edu
Christopher Martine
Department of Biology
State University of New York
at Plattsburgh
Plattsburgh, NY 12901-2681
martinct@plattsburgh.edu
Carolyn M. Wetzel
Department of Biological
Sciences & Biochemistry
Program
Smith College
Northampton, MA 01063
Tel. 413/585-3687
-Marsh
On the cover of this issue is a photo of some of the
team that spent two days early in November brain-
storming about the future direction of Planting-
Science, potentially the most significant program in
the history of botany education in this country. Time
will be the judge. But to help put it into perspective,
in this issue we feature the first of a planned series of
articles describing the history of botanical education
in America. The growth of American botany was
certainly dependent on support and examples from
England and continental Europe, but many innova-
tions in pedagogy to teach botany in the schools and
colleges originated in the United States. In fact, some
of the innovative “best practices” we struggle to dis-
seminate more broadly today were first proposed and
implemented by botanists more than 200 years ago in
the fledgling colleges, schools, and seminaries of the
new republic.
This issue also marks our full transition to an auto-
mated submission system for peer-reviewed manu-
scripts in the Plant Science Bulletin. The system is
now “live” with a hot link under: “publications,”
“Plant Science Bulletin,” “current issue” on the BSA
website. This link leads to instructions for authors for
four types of submissions, three of which should be
submitted through the automated system. Research
articles, descriptive articles, and essays of general bo-
tanical interest should be submitted directly through
Editorial Manager. We are particularly interested in
articles representing BSA sections that are not typi-
cally well represented in AJB. Editorial Manager for
the Plant Science Bulletin mirrors that used for sub-
mission of articles to the American Journal of Botany,
and if you have registered as an author or served as
a reviewer for AJB, you are already in the database
(with a username and password).
Book reviews, general news items, and requests
should still be submit-
ted directly to the edi-
tor at psb@botany.org.
Two articles are currently
in review for publication
in volume 58.
Do you have one to
submit?
125
Table of Contents
Society News
2011 Contributors to the Botanical Society........... .........................................................126
Students Urge Lawmakers to Invest in Science .............................................................128
Educational Resources for Botany (ERB) ......................................................................128
BSA Science Education News and Notes
PlantingScience ..............................................................................................................129
PlantIT Cases, Careers, and Collaborations ...................................................................130
Education Bits and Bobs: Recent Reports from the National Academies Press ............131
Editors Choice Reviews ...................................................................................................... 133
Reports and Reviews
Botanical Education in the United States: Part 1,
The Impact of Linneaus and the Foundations of Modern Pedagogy ..............................134
Personalia
Dr. David Mabberley Honored .......................................................................................159
“Next-Gen Sequencing” Special Issue Slated for AJB in 2012. .....................................161
Book Reviews ..................................................................................................................... 162
Books for Review ............................................................................................................... 178
Plant Science Bulletin Reviewers ....................................................................................... 179
Botany 2012 ........................................................................................................................ 180
www.botanyconference.org
126
ARLEE MONTALVO
WILLIAM CREPET
ANN HIRSCH
GREGORY ANDERSON
LEO HICKEY
BRUCE TIFFNEY
ANDREW GRELLER
GREGORY CHEPLICK
NOEL HOLMGREN
PATRICIA HOLMGREN
JAMES SEAGO
MARTIN GOFFINET
LEE KASS
ALFRED TRAVERSE
VICKI FUNK
BRENDA CASPER
LAFAYETTE FREDERICK
TODD COOKE
DAVID INOUYE
JUDITH SKOG
CLAUDIA JOLLS
PATRICIA GENSEL
ELISABETH WHEELER
JUDY JERNSTEDT
JOANNE SHARPE
SUZANNE KOPTUR
DAVID LEE
JENNIFER RICHARDS
CURT PETERSON
RAYMOND HOLTON
JOE WINSTEAD
DIANE ERWIN
W ESHBAUGH
FRANK EWERS
GAR ROTHWELL
LYNN CLARK
LINDA GRAHAM
EDITH TAYLOR
HARRY HORNER
ROBERT CRUDEN
REGIS MILLER
SUSAN EICHHORN
RAY EVERT
JOSEPH ARMSTRONG
DAVID MCLAUGHLIN
CHARLES MILLER JR
ANN SAKAI
ROGER ANDERSON
CHRISTOPHER HAUFLER
EDWARD COE JR
THOMAS RANKER
RUSSELL CHAPMAN
IRVING MENDELSSOHN
LOWELL URBATSCH
JAMES MICKLE
LINDA WATSON
RAHMONA THOMPSON
EDWARD SCHNEIDER
TED DELEVORYAS
KELLY STEELE
GREAYER MANSFIELD-JONES
WILSON CRONE
DARLEEN DEMASON
L MOE
KENT HOLSINGER
PAMELA DIGGLE
CYNTHIA JONES
WATSON LAETSCH
ROBERT PRICE
CAROL WILSON
RICHARD OLMSTEAD
CANDACE GALEN
RANDALL BAYER
ECKHARD WOLLENWEBER
DIANE BYERS
PETER STRAUB
LUCINDA MCDADE
RICHARD WHITKUS
S COSTANZA
GREGORY OWENS
JEFFREY OSBORN
PETER CURTIS
ANDREW SCHNABEL
PAMELA SOLTIS
BRIGITTE MEYER-BERTHAUD
DANIEL GLADISH
EDITH ALLEN
RUDOLPH SERBET
Dear BSA Colleagues,
On behalf of the Society I’d like to acknowledge and thank the following individuals (and families) for
their contributions to the Botanical Society of America during our last financial year. The gifts were made
to the BSA endowment, to various research awards, our educational efforts, and to the sections. This group
donated close to $30,000 to support student research, our many awards, and student attendance at Botany
2011 in St. Louis. Working with other organizations, the American Society of Plant Taxonomists and the
National Science Foundation specifically, we were also able to support 28 student and early career travel
grants to the International Botanical Congress.
Please understand, our contributions do make a difference. We encourage you to support the Society.
(All gifts to the BSA are tax deductible.)
Sincerely,
Linda Graham
BSA, At-large Director - Development
Society News
127
Plant Science Bulletin 57(4) 2011
SHING-FAN HUANG
IRENE TERRY
M WOJCIECHOWSKI
JOHN SPENCE
JASON HILTON
NANCY COUTANT
LUC BROUILLET
BRIGITTE MARAZZI
ANDREA WAKEFIELD
CAROL LANDRY
NAOMI FRAGA
LARS GÖTZENBERGER
LEAH DUDLEY
GRANT BARKLEY
PAUL CURTIN
AMANDA GRUSZ
MARGARET CONOVER
CYRILLE PRESTIANNI
REBECCA DRENOVSKY
BRENDA GREWELL
ANNA JACOBSEN
JANELLE BURKE
AMY BERKOV
VIRGIL PARKER
KEVIN POTTER
ANN KELSEY
STEFAN KIRCHANSKI
MARILYN MARYNICK
HYOSIG WON
OLGA KOPP
LUKE MANDER
BONNIE JACOBS
KATHLEEN KRON
HONGQI LI
JOSEPH COLOSI
BLANCA LEON
MARILYN LOVELESS
EISHO NISHINO
BRENDA MOLANO-FLORES
LAURA GOUGH
LAWRENCE GILES
ALISON ROBERTS
JOAN NESTER-HUDSON
STEVE RICE
LISA SCHULTHEIS
NAN ARENS
WESLEY LEVERICH
LUCINDA SWATZELL
KATHERINE PRESTON
NICHOLAS MCLETCHIE
CAROL GOODWILLIE
MARTHA COOK
TODD VISION
JUN YOKOYAMA
CAROL DAWSON
JOSEPH WILLIAMS
MELANIE DEVORE
MARIA GANDOLFO
HARUFUMI NISHIDA
THOMAS GIVNISH
JOCELYN HALL
SUSAN PELL
JANICE COONS
LINDA BROADHURST
ANDREW DOUST
PETER YSER
TAKAHIDE KUROSAWA
STEFAN GLEISSBERG
MARK MAYFIELD
MAC ALFORD
JOHN CHOINSKI
DONNA HAZELWOOD
PETER WILF
ATSUSHI YABE
ANDREA WEEKS
AMY LITT
BOHDAN DZIADYK
SEAN GRAHAM
NINA BAGHAI-RIDING
ELIZABETH HERMSEN
STEFAN LITTLE
RICHARD WURDACK
DON WALLER
COLIN ORIANS
WENDY ZOMLEFER
LYTTON MUSSELMAN
NANCY COWDEN
CAROLINE STROMBERG
SALLY NORTON
CLARE HASENKAMPF
CHRISTOPHER RANDLE
KEVIN DOUGHERTY
BONNIE ISAAC
HAZEL GORDON
KATRINA DLUGOSCH
PATRICIA SCHULZ
BELEN ESTEBANEZ PEREZ
BRAD OBERLE
WILLIAM CHEADLE
FRANCIS HUEBER
PATRICIA VALELLA
MICHELLE SMITH
RACHEL WILSON
AMANDA KENNEY
ALLISON SCHWARTZ
JERRY MILLER
RAFAEL AREVALO BURBANO
LARYSSA BALDRIDGE
BRANDON SINN
J SHIPMAN
LLUVIA HILDA FLORES
RENTERÍA
CHRISTIAN LIRIANO
FREDERIC PITRE
STEFANO CASTIGLIONE
SUSAN ROLFSMEIER
MARLENE LIPINSKI
TOM HORTON
SIMONE CAPPELLARI
JESICA LIE
JEFFREY FIRESTONE
RALPH QUATRANO
KAREN HALL
PEDRO DIAS
Thank-You
128
Plant Science Bulletin 57(4) 2011
Students Urge Lawmakers to Invest
in Science
More than 2,900 students pursuing a Ph.D.,
Master’s, or bachelor’s degree in science, technology,
engineering, or mathematics (STEM) have now
signed a letter to federal lawmakers encouraging
sustained investments in the nation’s scientific
research, education, and training programs.
“Throughout the 20th century, sustained
investments in the areas of science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics helped build our
nation’s economy and improved quality of life for
people around the world,” states the letter. “If the
United States is to remain a global leader, both
economically and scientifically, we must sustain
and reinvest in STEM research and development.”
“As future scientists and educators, federal
funding is important to us all,” said Rachel Meyer,
one of the co-authors of the letter. “While addressing
the nation’s budget challenges is essential, now is not
the time to sacrifice investments in science.” Meyer
is a doctoral candidate at the City University of
New York, and Student Representative on the Board
of Directors for the Botanical Society of America.
The petition was sent to all members of Congress
on 8 September 2011. Congress is considering
legislation to fund the National Science Foundation
and other science agencies in fiscal year 2012.
“Science is a proven driver of economic growth
in the United States,” said American Institute of
Biological Sciences President Dr. James P. Collins.
“Federal support for research and science education
is vital for job creation and economic recovery,
and for continued advancements in human
health, national security, agriculture, energy, and
environmental stewardship. The views expressed in
this letter are a real credit to the foresight of these
thousands of students.”
Students from all 50 states, Washington, DC,
Puerto Rico, and Guam signed the letter. The
students are pursuing degrees across a wide range
of scientific disciplines, including biology, geology,
chemistry, physics, linguistics, astronomy, math,
computer science, and engineering.
The letter is the result of a joint effort between
student members of the Botanical Society of
America and the American Institute of Biological Sciences.
A copy of the letter is available online at
http://www.aibs.org/public-policy/resources/
Student_Science_Petition_9.8.2011.pdf.
Educational Resources for Botany (ERB)
Have you ever needed a good idea for a lab or the
perfect image for a PowerPoint slide and couldn’t
find one? The Education Committee is developing
a searchable database that will make finding these
resources easy. As part of the National Science
Foundation’s National Science Digital Library
(NSDL) Project, and supported by the National
Science Foundation, the Andrew W. Mellon
Foundation, The Claire Giannini Hoffman Fund,
the Microsoft Corporation, and the University
of Wisconsin, the Botanical Society of America
is contributing to the Collection Workflow
Integration System (CWIS) and the development of
a resource for science teaching. This resource will
be available to anyone with access to the Internet.
We need you! In order to build a robust system
we need reviewers and we need submissions of
resources. Resources can be submitted using your
BSA ID to login at planted.botany.org. Author
guidelines and the criteria reviewers use are here.
The Educational Resources for Botany (ERB)
accepts electronic materials that have been proven
successful in teaching botanical terms and/or
concepts. These materials could be useful at any
age level or for any type of audience (e.g., K-16,
informal education settings, distance education).
Examples include syllabi, lab exercises, in-class
activities, videos, computer games, PowerPoint
slides, images, videos, audio files, or other materials
that aid in learning about plants. Currently, we
are particularly interested in syllabi for plant-
related courses since there are many requests from
new faculty for this information. Please consider
submitting your syllabi now.
The peer review process is slightly different
from that used for AJB. Reviewers and authors will
review and discuss the resource in an online format
that will allow for more immediate feedback and
collaboration. Once all are in agreement that the
resource meets the publishing requirements, the
resource is made available via www.cwis.botany.
org.
Please help create the “go-to” web site for
botanical education resources. If you are interested
in volunteering as a reviewer, please contact Beverly
J. Brown, Chairperson, Education Committee
(bbrown6@naz.edu). If you are interested in
submitting a resource, please log in and complete
the information needed to start the review process.
129
PlantingScience
“Yes, it’s super exciting to watch plants grow. ;) The
trichome number differ from the plants. Like our one
plant in the high fertilizer has about five trichomes.
While one plant in the low have about six while
others have none. Why is this? And we don’t think
we have quite enough information yet.”—Wichita
North High School Student
“Hello, my name is Makayla. I would really like
to learn about plants, especially with a scientist!
:)…I am currently in 7th grade.…Thanks for the
opportunity! (:”—Northlake Middle School Student
Enthusiasm for learning about plants and
understanding science is spreading, as these
students have testified from the Fall 2011 mentored
inquiry session. And what an opportunity to ignite
curiosity and critical thinking—across generations
and across the globe. Middle school, high school,
and college classes from 22 states and as far away
as South Korea and the United Arab Emirates
are posting their research online. This fall is the
largest-ever PlantingScience session with over 225
scientists and 2000 students.
Student teams are getting encouragement and
advice from their mentors on plant investigations
covering genetics, germination, photosynthesis,
pollination, life cycles, and physiology. With the
open nature of most inquiry modules and the open
minds of young learners, the environment is ripe
for creative questions. For example, fall teams have
asked:
• Does the surface area of plant leaves affect
their rate of photosynthesis?
• Will scented flowers attract more pollinators
than nonscented flowers?
• How will the pH of agar affect the speed of the
fern life cycle?
• Is there a correlation between leaf area of
Arabidopsis and root mass?
• Will wind affect a plant’s growth?
BSA Science Education
News and Notes
BSA Science Education News and Notes is a quarterly update about the BSA’s education efforts
and the broader education scene. We invite you to submit news items or ideas for future features.
Contact: Claire Hemingway, BSA Education Director, at chemingway@botany.org or Marshall Sundberg,
PSB Editor, at psb@botany.org.
Thanks to the many students, teachers, scientists,
and 14 partner societies whose contributions
make PlantingScience a vibrant online learning
community!
PlantingScience continues to evolve with
participant feedback. This session we are
experimenting with mentor-teacher liaisons to
respond to feedback from both mentors and
teachers for greater communication. Our thanks
to the extra efforts of the 12 graduate students
and post-docs sponsored by the American Society
of Plant Biologists and the 23 sponsored by the
Botanical Society of America who are taking
on this role as part of their service on the 2011-
2012 PlantingScience Master Plant Science Team.
Visioning for the future evolution will also be a
key focus of a November Steering Committee
meeting. We always welcome your comments and
suggestions.
An evening poster session with teachers asking
students about their findings with chia seeds was a
highlight of the second workshop. Each year teachers,
who traveled to Texas A&M University from across
country, and students, who came mainly from the
Houston area, worked together to try out plant
investigative cases the teachers had developed the
week earlier.
130
Plant Science Bulletin 57(4) 2011
PlantIT Cases, Careers, and
Collaborations
Will introducing teachers and students to
plant biology and plant-related careers through
investigative cases bring a better understanding
of science practices and solving of real world
problems? What does it mean for teachers and
students to have opportunities to engage as
members of a science learning community?
Those were some of the driving questions behind
the activities for teachers and students offered by
PlantIT Careers, Cases, and Collaborations. As the
project, funded by a National Science Foundation
ITEST award (DRL-0733280) to the Botanical
Society of America, BioQUEST Curriculum
Consortium, and Texas A&M University, comes
to a close, we’re reflecting on outcomes and lessons
learned.
“The knowledge that you obtain once you are in an
open environment such as this. Plenty of unopened
doors open up.” Based on this student’s description
of benefits she gained from attending the week-
long residential summer program, we hit some of
our targets.
Teachers visited a museum, research facilities, and
field stations during half-day field trips like this one
with Dr. Gaylon Morgan, as part of a comprehensive
learning experience with cotton (fibers, seeds, DNA).
Bioinformatics and natural fiber textiles was the
exploration theme for the final summer workshop.
With fewer U.S. students choosing to pursue
plant science and students’ classroom experience
with plants often limited to abstract content, our
project aimed to increase awareness of technology-
intensive plant careers and practicing scientists and
provide context for science investigations through
investigative, case-based learning, a flexible variant
of problem-based learning.
During the summers of 2008, 2009, and 2010, 36
teachers from 14 states and Puerto Rico attended
two-week-long workshops hosted at Texas A&M
University in College Station, Texas. Sixty-four
students primarily from Houston and rural
southeast Texas attended the three residential
summer camps that overlapped in the second week.
We sought to reach primarily high school teachers,
with selective extension to middle school teachers,
and to serve primarily underrepresented students.
Two-thirds of the workshop teachers taught in high
schools and over three-quarters worked in schools
serving underrepresented student populations.
Students attending the residential summer camps
were primarily female (females outnumber males
by almost 3 to 1) and Latino/Hispanic (77.6%) or
African American (13.8%). An unexpected but
highly welcome outcome was that over a whopping
25% of the teacher participants and 13% of students
returned to attend more than one summer.
Exploring different biology themes for each
workshop offered opportunities for participants
to continue to build plant biology content
including pollen and remote sensing; seeds and
ethnobotany; and fibers and bioinformatics. For
teachers, workshops introduced often-unexpected
interdisciplinary links to plant content and some of
the technological tools used in science, for example,
a 17th century sail introducing polymer science to
preserve textiles and linking chemistry and biology
to social science, or a seedy sock introducing plant
identification and germination rates as clues to
a crime. Teachers delved into the investigative
case-based learning pedagogy, the online tools for
investigations, and the value of publicly sharing
evidence-based conclusions with facilitators Ethel
Stanley, Margaret Waterman, and Toni Lafferty.
Field trips to research facilities and guest speakers,
including representatives from Monsanto in two
years, enhanced the teachers’ connections to
science practices and scientists. Teachers drew on
all these experiences as they collaborated in teams
to develop cases to take back to the classroom.
For students, the week-long residential program
was an opportunity to explore cases with teachers;
meet scientists and plant-related professionals;
visit laboratories, gardens, and greenhouses; and
131
Plant Science Bulletin 57(4) 2011
get a taste for college life. A focus on careers was
embedded throughout but took center stage in
career panels and scientist interviews. In the first
two years, science communication expert Charles
Kazelik prepared for the experience of talking
with professionals they would meet and modeled
interview techniques and technologies. In the final
year, students had three days of hands-on experience
with scientists, learning about either integrative
pest management or cell networking. Texas A&M
University and the environs proved to be a rich
source of experts and facilities keen to connect with
secondary school teachers and students. Genetics,
entomology, forensic palynology, agronomics,
horticulture, phytochemistry, herbarium science,
library science, and science communication were
among the 50 diverse fields of study the 35 plant-
related professionals directly involved in the
summer program introduced. “There are so many
different careers out there that I didn’t know about,”
remarked one student. Pre- and post-test survey
results also support that students’ understandings
of plant-related careers and plant biology increased.
The following products of the project are
currently available online.
Student-produced audio podcast interviews with
Dr. Eubanks and Dr. Hinze are available on the
myPlantIT website:
http://myplantit.org/blog/wp-content/
uploads/2009/07/zulean_interview_micky_
eubanks2.mp3
http://myplantit.org/blog/wp-content/
uploads/2009/07/zulean_interview_usda_lori_
hinze1.mp3
Dr. Biology’s interviews with Dr. Bryant and
Flora Delaterre are available on the Science SPORE
award-winning website, Ask A Biologist Website:
http://askabiologist.asu.edu/podcasts/pollen-
natures-tiny-clues
http://askabiologist.asu.edu/podcasts/flora-
delaterre-plant-detective
An e-book is coming soon that will contain
a dozen teacher-developed cases addressing
environmental science, structure and function,
biodiversity, nutrition, global warming, and other
topics that fit well in secondary school classrooms.
For teachers concerned with helping their
students identify future career possibilities, career
connections are noted in each topic.
Students share a laugh with Dr. Vaughn Bryant as
they conduct an interview while visiting his forensic
palynology laboratory and learning about his career
journey during the first summer program.
Education Bits and Bob:
Recent Reports from the
National Academies Press
Reframing core ideas into new standards—“A
Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices,
Crosscutting Concepts and Core Ideas”—presents
a conceptual framework intended to guide the
development of new K-12 standards. This in turn
will influence curriculum, instruction, assessment,
and professional development across the nation
for years to come. New dimensions of Scientific
and Engineering Practices and Cross Cutting
Concepts are updates on the familiar overarching
themes of Scientific Inquiry and Unifying Concepts
and Processes. In the Life Sciences, concepts are
grouped under four core ideas that cover structures
and processes, ecology, heredity, and evolution. To
learn more, including grade band endpoints, see:
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13165.
A roadmap for increasing underrepresented
participants in STEM—identifying best practices
for increasing involvement and improving quality
of education—is a practical outcome outlined
in “Expanding Underrepresented Minority
Participation: America’s Science and Technology
Talent at the Crossroads.” The report also reviews
demographic data on rates of change and challenges
and provides recommendations for education
systems including higher education, government,
and non-profit organizations. See http://www.nap.
edu/catalog.php?record_id=12984.
132
Plant Science Bulletin 57(4) 2011
What works in K-12 STEM education?—“Successful STEM Education: A Workshop Summary”
synthesized examples of the kinds of schools, supporting practices, and conducive conditions for highly
successful STEM schools and programs. Empirical reasoning, scientific practices, reaching diverse and
underserved students, and assessment figured prominently in the practices that support effective STEM
education. See http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13230.
Relics
Travels in Nature’s Time Machine
Piotr Naskrecki
Foreword by Cristina Goettsch Mittermeier
“Relics is an exciting, adventure-filled, and scientifi-
cally important presentation by one of the world’s
best naturalists and photographers.”—E. O. Wilson
cloth $45.00
The University of Chicago Press • www.press.uchicago.edu
Bo
tany
From ChiCago
DecePtive Beauties
The World of Wild Orchids
christian Ziegler
With an Introduction by Michael Pollan and a Foreword by Natalie Angier
“Ziegler—a trained biologist, as well as photographer—shows these
remarkable plants in the context of their habitat: marsh, semi-desert,
tropical forest. That—and his astonishing photographs of orchids
and their pollinators—reminds us how clever, precious, and diverse
nature can be, and why conservation matters.”—Chris Johns, editor
in chief, National Geographic Magazine
cloth $45.00
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF
PLANT SCIENCES
Manfred Ruddat, Editor-in-Chief
A major outlet for botanical research since 1875, the
International Journal of Plant Sciences publishes current
research in all areas of the plant sciences, including
genetics and genomics, developmental and cell biology,
biochemistry and physiology, morphology and structure,
systematics, plant-microbe interactions, paleobotany,
evolution, and ecology.
IJPS emphasizes dynamic rather
than purely descriptive work and regularly features new
and exciting research presented at major botanical
conferences. Readership includes research scientists, plant
scientists, biologists, and educators. Nine issues per year.
2012 Subscription Rates:
Electronic - only $92
Print + Electronic $99
Student Electronic-only $50
Additional shipping and taxes apply
to orders outside the USA.
Online at www.journals.uchicago.edu/IJPS
133
Student Perceptions of the Use of
Inquiry Practices in a Biology Sur-
vey Laboratory Course
Fayer, Liz, Garreth Zalud, Mark Baron, Cyn-
thia M. Anderson, and Timothy J. Duggan.
Journal of College Science Teaching 41(2):
82-88.
Inquiry is widely regarded among the science
education community as being a best practice
for teaching laboratory classes. This paper
demonstrates that for certain kinds of learning,
college students also think inquiry is the most
effective technique a teacher can employ. This
brings us back to the old point, “Why isn’t inquiry
used more in the classroom?” For the answer to
this see the article of the same name by Costenson
and Lawson, 1986, The American Biology Teacher
48(3): 150-158. Unfortunately, some things just
don’t change! BUT WE SHOULD TRY HARDER!
The Case for Forensic Botany
Barratt, Natalie M.
The American Biology Teacher 73(7): 414- 417.
Barratt provides an interesting approach to make
plant anatomy more interesting to students—
make plant structure the evidence required to
solve a forensics problem. She provides a variety
of scenarios and prompts that can be used in
an introductory laboratory and includes some
nice references including Graham’s 2006 article
published in PSB (52: 78-84).
An Inquiry-Based Field & Labora-
tory Investigation of Leaf Decay: A
Critical Aquatic Ecosystem Function
Hopkins, Jessica M. and Rosemary J. Smith.
The American Biology Teacher 74(9): 542-546.
Hopkins and Smith put an ecological spin on leaf
decay concentrating more on macroscopic features,
but which could easily also include microscopic
examination. The focus is on leaf decay rates under
a variety of conditions, which opens the enquiry
to a variety of biotic and abiotic conditions. Both
this article and the one above are appropriate for
introductory level college classes.
Editors Choice reviews
134
years ago. I was intrigued to discover more and to
share those discoveries with colleagues devoted to
improving botanical instruction in today’s colleges
and schools and the botanical literacy of society at
large.
The current paper is the first of a planned
series, growing out of the Ethel Belk Lecture,
that will document the development of botanical
education in the United States from earliest times
to the present, with an emphasis on the role of
the Botanical Society of America. Although a
considerable amount of literature exists on the
development of botany as a science, both in this
country and in Europe, relatively little has been
published concerning botanical education, outside
of the biographies of some key individuals. This is
particularly true before the mid-19th century. This
inaugural paper focuses on the early development
of botanical instruction in this country, from
colonial times through the first indications of
an American uniqueness in the early 1800s. Not
surprisingly, the early botanists followed the lead
of colleagues in England and Europe, but there
are some notable exceptions where Americans
broke new ground. Highlights of the paper were
summarized in a presentation to the Historical
Section of the Botanical Society during the Botany
2010 meeting in Providence, Rhode Island.
A Sputtering Botanical
Beginning
It is well accepted that the earliest botanists in
the United States were European collectors and
naturalists collecting specimens for sponsors in
Europe (Brendel, 1879). These collections added
to the herbaria of Europe and were cataloged and
described in floras and illustrated compendia.
Occasionally the text might include information
beyond taxonomic description that one might
consider “educational.” The earliest example is
William Hughes’ The American Physician, or a
Treatise of the Roots, Plants, Trees, Shrubs, Fruits,
Herbs, etc., Growing in the English Plantations in
America (1672). In addition to plant descriptions,
the text described, “…the Place, Time, Names,
Kinds, Temperature, Vertues [sic] and Uses of
them, either for Diet, Physik [sic], etc.: whereunto
is added a Discourse of the Cacao-Nut Tree, and
the Uses of its Fruit, with all the ways of making
Chocolate, the like never extant before….”
Botanical education in the United
States: Part 1, The impact of Linneaus
and the foundations of modern peda-
gogy
Marshall D. Sundberg
Department of Biological Sciences
Emporia State University
Emporia, KS 66801
Submitted 16 June 2011.
Accepted 27 September 2011.
Abstract
Early botanical education in America was
strongly influenced by Carl Linnaeus, both directly
and through his influence on European botany.
His Philosophia Botanica served as an outline for
nearly all course syllabi and botanical texts used in
the American colonies and early republic through
the early 19th century. Not unexpectedly, botanical
instruction was closely tied to medical instruction,
and most of the key players during this time period
were trained primarily in medicine and supported
their plant studies through their medical profession.
Nevertheless, by the early 1800s some distinctively
American trends in botanical education began
to appear, which continue to be touted as best
practices even today.
Key words: Barton, Colden, Eaton, education,
Hosack, Linnaeus, Waterhouse
In 2006 both the Botanical Society of America
and the Botany Department at Miami University,
Oxford, Ohio, celebrated their 100th anniversaries
(though it can be argued that the Society was
founded 13 years earlier in 1893; Smokovitis, 2006).
As part of the latter celebration, I was invited to
present the Ethel Belk Lecture on Botany. Given the
eminence of the department in botanical training,
I chose to speak on “Botany in Curricula of U.S.
Colleges and Universities: 1810-2010 and Beyond.”
While researching that presentation, I was surprised
by the number of “educational initiatives” of the
past two decades that actually were anticipated by
our botanical forefathers one and two hundred
Reports and Reviews
135
Plant Science Bulletin 57(4) 2011
What is not so well known is that botany had a
sputtering start in the American college classroom
as early as 1642 (Ford, 1964). As New Englands First
Fruits, a tract on early New England that depicts
the founding of Harvard University, describes:
“After God had carried us fafe to New England,
and wee had builded our houfes…it pleafed God
to ftir up the heart of one Mr. Harvard…to give
the one halfe of his Eftate…towards the erecting
of a Colledge, and all his Library…” (Peter and
Weld, 1643, 1865 reprint, pp. 23-24). The times
and order of studies for the four-year curriculum
were clearly defined: at one o’clock on Saturday
afternoons during the summer, Henry Dunster, the
second “master” and first president of the college
(1640-1654), offered “The Nature of Plants” (Peter
and Weld, 1643, p. 30). According to Ford, the
course textbook was Aristotle’s De Plantis. The
manner of instruction was “The summe of every
Lecture shall be examined, before the new lecture
be read” (Ford, 1964, p. 59). This style of recitation
involved rote memorization from a text with
students demonstrating their mastery by reciting
back to the teacher. It remained the dominant
form of instruction into the 1800s. It is unclear
whether botany continued to be taught at Harvard
for the remaining 11 years of Dunster’s tenure as
president, but it certainly disappeared thereafter,
and for the next 100 years, no formal botanical
instruction existed in America (Ford, 1964). Its
reemergence was stimulated by the transplantation
of the European Enlightenment to America and
a trend toward “new learning” in the American
colleges. Beginning at Yale in 1740, mathematics,
the physical sciences, and medicine were added to
the traditional classical curriculum; by 1776, six
of the eight colonial colleges had professorships
of mathematics and natural philosophy (Rudolph,
1977). The works of Linnaeus (1751, 1753) were
particularly important for botany.
The Linnaean System Comes to
America: Cadwallader and Jane
Colden
Among the early botanical texts that included
species from America was Linnaeus’ Species
Plantarum (1753). More significant to this story,
however, was his publication of Philosophia
Botanica two years earlier (Figure 1), which became
available in an English translation in 1775 (Rose,
1775). As noted in a review of the recent translation
(Sundberg, 2005), Philosophia Botanica is much
more than a justification for the forthcoming
Species Plantarum. In fact, it was a syllabus for an
introductory botany course that would be copied
and modified by botanists in the future United
States (and in Europe) for nearly 100 years. In
the preface to his 1827 textbook, Thomas Nuttall
noted, “Nearly all the elementary works on Botany
extant are derived from the Philosophia Botanica of
Linnaeus, a work of great labor and utility to those
who would wish to make themselves masters of this
fascinating branch of natural knowledge.”
Figure 1. Cover of the 2003 reprint of Linnaeus’ Phi-
losophia Botanica. (Used with permission of Oxford
University Press.)
Linnaeus began with a history of botany and an
enumeration of the key botanical texts that should
be included in any botanist’s library. This listing
formed the basis of botanical works purchased
by individuals and libraries during the colonial
and early republic periods. The earliest American
textbook authors followed Linnaeus’ lead in
listing appropriate reference and supplemental
texts at the beginning of their works. The second
chapter provided a listing of alternative taxonomic
systems culminating with Linnaeus’ own sexual
system. Again, early American authors included
an explanation of the Linnaean system, which they
adopted, though they may have included examples
of alternative systems. Benjamin Smith Barton
(1803), in what is recognized as the first American
textbook of botany (Ewan and Ewan, 2007), not
only included examples of alternative systems but
136
Plant Science Bulletin 57(4) 2011
became well known to visiting botanists, including
John and William Bartram of Philadelphia;
Alexander Garden of Charlestown, South Carolina;
Peter Kalm of Sweden; Peter Collinson and John
Ellis of England; and Linnaeus himself (Rickett and
Hall, 1963; Smith, 1984; Harrison, 1995). Collinson
wrote to John Bartram, “Our friend Colden’s
daughter has, in a scientific manner, sent over
several sheets of plants, very curiously anatomized
after his [Linnaeus’] method” (Darlington, 1849,
p. 201). To Cadwallader Colden, Collinson wrote,
“I wish your fair daughter was near Wm. Bartram.
He would much assist her at first setting out [with
painting plants]” (Slaughter, 1996, p. 115). Later
Bartram wrote to Jane, “Respected Friend Jane
Colden: I received thine of October the 26th, 1756,
and read it several time with agreeable satisfaction;
indeed, I am very careful of it, and it keeps company
with the choicest correspondence,—European
letters…” (Darlington, 1849, p. 400). Then followed
a discussion of several plants in which Bartram
answered questions posed by Jane or corroborated
her observations. Concerning Jane, Garden wrote
to Ellis in 1755, “Not only the doctor himself is a
great botanist, but his lovely daughter is greatly
master of the Linnaean method, and cultivates it
with great assiduity” (Smith, 1821, vol. 1, p. 342).
Jane was the subject of several letters written
directly to Linnaeus. In 1756 Peter Collinson
wrote, “I but lately heard from Mr. Colden. He is
well; but what is marvelous, his daughter is perhaps
the first lady that has so perfectly studied your
system. She deserves to be celebrated” (Darlington,
1849, p. 20). Two years later, in 1758, Ellis wrote
to Linnaeus, “This young lady merits your esteem,
and does honour to your System. She has drawn
and described 400 plants in your method only:
she used English terms” (Smith, 1821, vol. 1, p.
90). The work Ellis described is the unpublished,
untitled manuscript describing New York plants
that was subsequently titled Flora Nov.-Eboracensis
or Flora of New York by the German botanist Ernst
Baldinger, professor of botany at Jena, Göttingen,
and Marburg. Baldinger sent the work to Sir Joseph
Banks, who donated it to the British Museum,
where it resides today (Smith, 1988; Figure 2).
The 57 descriptions and sketches in Rickett and
Hall (1963) are facsimiles of selected pages from
the Flora. Each entry consisted of a complete
morphological description accompanied by one
or more line drawings. For many of the plants,
she described medicinal uses by the local people,
including parts and amounts used and methods of
made some modifications of Linnaeus’ system to be
inclusive of some of the specimens he collected. The
bulk of Philosophia Botanica consisted of chapters
defining terms and explaining basic flowering
plant morphology. Again, later American authors
devoted substantial parts of their texts to similar
information (Barton, 1804; Eaton, 1817, 1820;
Locke, 1819; Nuttall, 1827). But we will come to
these later.
Linnaeus was significant to botanical education
in the future United States not only because
of the published Philosophia and the natural
system but through his influence as a teacher
and correspondent. Among the Americans who
collected specimens for and corresponded with
Linnaeus was Cadwallader Colden. Colden was
born in Ireland and graduated from the University
of Edinburgh after studying for the ministry. He
continued his studies, including coursework in
botany, to become a physician before immigrating
to Philadelphia in 1710. In 1718 he moved to New
York, where he began a long career in public service,
which included serving as lieutenant governor of
New York from 1761 to 1776. In 1740, nearly 30
years after settling in the colonies, Colden obtained
a copy of Linnaeus’ Genera Plantarum and quickly
assimilated the work. He began to collect local
specimens, classify them following the Linnaean
system, and send them to the master in Sweden.
More than 300 specimens eventually made their
way to Uppsala. Thus began a correspondence and
exchange of materials with botanists and naturalists
in Europe and in America, including John Bartram
and Benjamin Franklin in Philadelphia. So
appreciated was this work that in 1744 Linnaeus
named a new genus Coldenia. In 1750 Peter Kalm
(the Linnaean disciple for whom Kalmia is named)
requested biographical information from Colden
to be included in Biographica Botanicorum (Keys,
1906).
More pertinent to our story, though, is Colden’s
educational role as a mentor to his daughter, Jane.
Jane was born in New York in 1724 and was four
years old when the family moved to “Coldengham,”
a 3000-acre estate near present-day Montgomery,
New York, granted to Colden by the governor. It was
here Jane grew up and learned the Linnaean system
from her father, who translated (from Latin to simple
English) the technical terminology and taught her
to make ink leaf imprints. Jane exhibited a talent
for careful observation and accurate description,
including pen-and-ink illustrations. Her talents
137
Plant Science Bulletin 57(4) 2011
preparation. Evidence of her critical analysis can be
found in her descriptions in which she states and
justifies discrepancies with Linnaeus. For instance,
concerning Polygala Jane wrote the following:
Observat. Linnaeus describes this as being a
Papilionatious Flower, and calls the two largest
Leaves of the Cup Alae, but as they continue, till
the Seed is ripe and the two flower Leaves, and its
appendage fol [sic] together. I must beg Leave to
differ from him [sic] Added to this, the Seed Vessell
[sic], differs from all that I have observed of the
Papilionatious Kind. (Rickett and Hall, 1963, p. 53)
.
Figure 2. 1963 reprint of the British Museum copy of
Jane Colden’s manuscript. (Used with permission of
The Garden Club of Orange and Dutchess Counties.)
It is also of note that Jane described and named a
new species, which she called Fibraurea. Eventually
the plant reached Linnaeus. Ellis suggested, “Her
father has a plant called after him Coldenia, perhaps
you should call this Coldenella, or any other name
that might distinguish her among your genera”
(Darlington, 1849, p. 20). This did not come to pass.
Smith (1988) noted that 50 years before Colden,
Hannah English Williams of South Carolina
collected natural history specimens, presumably
including plants, for British naturalists, but she
was only a collector. Jane Colden, on the other
hand, made detailed descriptions and sketches of
the plants she collected, noting their form and the
arrangement and number of flower parts. From
this she could generalize about generic and family
relationships.
Jane Colden was “…the first botanist of her sex
in the country” (Gray, 1843). More significantly,
“Although Colden’s botanical career was brief
and her publications few, both ending with her
marriage in 1759, she was America’s pioneer (and
only) woman scientist for almost ninety years”
(Rossiter, 1982, p. 3). In addition, “Jane Colden’s
story illustrates the importance of both women’s
scientific work and colonial participation to the
eventual centrality of formal science in Western
culture” (Gronim, 2007, p. 33). For the purpose
of this paper, the most significant aspect of Jane
Colden is that she was the first home-schooled
botanist, and most likely the first botanist of any
sort, trained in what would become the United
States. As we will see later, this was to become a
significant form of botanical instruction for young
people in the developing country (Kohlstedt, 1990).
Adam Kuhn Arrives in
Philadelphia
Most colonial botanists, even those born in
the colonies, received their botanical training in
Europe in preparation for a career in medicine, as
had Cadwallader Colden. Since the 16th century,
botany was recognized as a part of medical training
in Europe, and this formal link persisted into the
early 20th century (Monroe, 1911). In 1765 the
first medical school in the British colonies was
established at the College of Philadelphia (the
forerunner of the University of Pennsylvania).
Like Dr. Colden, the faculty members of the new
college were trained at the University of Edinburgh
and followed the English system. For nearly 20
years Philadelphia was the sole seat of medical
and botanical training in this country. In 1768,
three years after its founding, Dr. Adam Kuhn was
added to the College of Philadelphia faculty to
teach botany and materia medica. Kuhn, who had
studied at the University of Uppsala with Linnaeus
from 1761 to 1764 (Kuhn was probably Linnaeus’
only American student) and received his M.D.
degree from Edinburgh in 1767, thus became the
first professor of botany in the future United States.
On arriving in Philadelphia, he advertised in the
May 5th, 1768, issue of The Pennsylvania Gazette:
DR. KUHN’s introductory Lecture to his Course of
BOTANY will be delivered on Wednesday, the 11th
Instant, at Six o’Clock in the Evening, at his House
138
Plant Science Bulletin 57(4) 2011
in Market-street. He will then also give a Plan of
his Course, and fix the Days of Attendance.—Every
Gentleman to pay Half a Johannes for the Course.
Readers familiar with the life of Charles Darwin
and his college experience at Edinburgh (Browne,
1996) will recognize that university professors
frequently offered specialized courses outside the
university in which students could enroll. Kuhn
would give an introductory botany lecture at his
home on Market Street, which could be the hook
for students to enroll in the remainder of the course
offered in the medical school of the College of
Philadelphia. His botany course, if it in fact “made
enrollment,” was offered only once, the first year of
his tenure, because it never again appeared in the
catalog. On the other hand, his materia medica was
an annual offering in great demand by aspiring
physicians. Despite Kuhn’s excellent training and
background, William Darlington later wrote,
“although he [Kuhn] had the advantage of studying
under the illustrious Swede [Linnaeus] and was said
to have been a favorite pupil (‘Linneo ex discipulis
acceptissimus’), it does not appear that he ever
did much for the Science” (Robbins, 1960, p. 294).
Similarly, although he had a promising beginning,
his impact on botanical education was minimal.
Benjamin Waterhouse,
America’s First Endowed
Professor of Botany (and
Entomology), Brings Botany to
the Curriculum
The honor of having presented the first regular
course in botany (if not the first formal botany
course actually taught in the United States) goes to
Dr. Benjamin Waterhouse (Figure 3). Waterhouse
was born in Newport, Rhode Island, in 1754 and
attended medical schools in London, England;
Edinburgh, Scotland; and Leiden, Republic of the
United Netherlands. In London, under William
Curtis’ mentorship, Waterhouse “‘herborized the
environs of London two years in succession’…. [but
his] interest in botany was not that of collecting”
(Cash, 2006, p. 42). Curtis would have introduced
Waterhouse to Linnaeus’ works because they were
the foundation of his own botanical lectures,
published posthumously in 1805.
The primary focus
of botany at this time was on the collection and
identification of plants and on their medical uses,
but already Waterhouse was becoming interested
in plants as organisms that supplied the nutritional
as well as medical needs of humans. On his return
to the United States in 1783, Waterhouse was hired
by Harvard as professor of the theory and practice
of medicine. The same year, he was elected a fellow
(trustee) at Rhode Island College, now Brown
University, and he served as professor of natural
history there from 1784 to 1791 (Cash, 2006, p.
871). At Rhode Island, he and the philosopher
Joseph Brown were “engaged to give lectures in
their respective branches, without any expense
to the College while destitute of an endowment”
(Brunson, 1914). At the time of Waterhouse’s hiring,
Rhode Island College’s scientific instrumentation
included a pair of globes, an electrical machine, a
telescope, and two microscopes. Perhaps the latter
were enough inducement for Waterhouse to accept
the appointment in Rhode Island.
Figure 3. Benjamin Waterhouse, 1776, by Gilbert
Stuart. (Used with permission of Redwood Library
and Athenaeum, Newport, Rhode Island. Gift of Mrs.
Louisa Lee Waterhouse.)
These early lectures at Providence, in 1785
and 1786, according to Brunson (1914; note that
Waterhouse stated this was in 1786 and 1787;
see below), were not formal classes at the college.
Rather, they were public lectures “…to bring the
benefits of the college to the whole community”
(p. 268). Although sponsored by the college, the
lectures were given in the courthouse and were
“open to both sexes of the public.… According to
139
Plant Science Bulletin 57(4) 2011
the Providence Gazette, the first set of lectures were
‘pleasing and instructive’ and were ‘attended by a
large and very reputable audience’” (Cash, 2006, p.
87). It seems that public service as a condition of
employment at American colleges and universities
has had a long history; outreach to the local
community is not an invention of the late 20th and
early 21st centuries!
Perhaps, as in Kuhn’s case, these lectures were
intended to entice potential students to enroll
in the college. But rather than an individual’s
initiative, this apparently was an early version of a
college marketing plan. Given that Waterhouse was
already employed at Harvard, he must have had
other motivations. Perhaps it was a feeling of duty
to his home state, or perhaps it was in response to
a general attitude espoused by a contemporary, the
American-born botanist Manasseh Cutler (1785,
pp. 396-397), who wrote in the first volume of
the Memoirs of the American Academy of Arts and
Sciences, “The almost total neglect of botanical
enquiries, in this part of the country, may be
imputed, in part, to this, that Botany has never been
taught in any of our Colleges, and to the difficulties
that are supposed to attend it; but principally to the
mistaken opinion of its inutility in common life.”
This would change in three years.
There had never been any lectures on Natural
History in the United States prior to the course
referred to [see below]. Neither had Botany nor
Mineralogy been publickly [sic] taught in any part
of the union anterior to the year 1788; excepting,
indeed, a short course of twelve lectures, on Natural
History in general, given by the author in the college
at Providence, in the years, 1786 and 1787, he being,
at the time, Professor of the Theory and Practice of
Physic in the University at Cambridge [Harvard].
(Waterhouse, 1811, p. vi)
In 1788 Waterhouse began presenting a formal
series of botany lectures: units 8, 9, and 10 of
his 20-unit Natural History course at Harvard
(Waterhouse, 1804a). Unit 8 covered anatomy
and morphology of the mature plant and seed.
The former included microscopic examination of
roots and stems. The latter included the effects of
temperature and moisture on seed germination.
The final lecture was “On the oxygenating process
in the growing vegetable” (p. 310). The focus of unit
9 was agricultural production, focusing primarily
on nutrition. “Does the food of plants reside in the
atmospherical air? or in water? or in putrid animal
substances? or in a combination of them all?” (p.
310). He also focused on a strict comparison of
plants and animals, asking, “Do the two tribes
of organized beings form, instead of two distinct
KINGDOMS, ONE IMMENSE FAMILY?” and
transitioned through plants with obvious movement,
such as sensitive plant, through hydras or polyps
(p. 310). Finally, in unit 10 he briefly explains
the Linnaean system, how to make a collection,
and “Of the importance of the Art of Drawing to
every man of education” (p. 310). Finally is a list
of recommended readings, including Grew, Hales,
and Malpighi.
His first Harvard course in natural history, in
1788, was presented with no fee. In 1789 he had
five students registered for a fee of 1 guinea, and
the following year, seven students were enrolled at
the same rate. “In the fourth year he ‘allowed each
to subscribe whatever he chose’ and the number
jumped to 30. However, President Willard objected
to the innovation and it was dropped” (Cash,
2006, p. 87). It is interesting that the president’s
son, Sidney, described Waterhouse’s lectures as
“very popular” for their “vivacity and compass of
expression” and for Waterhouse’s use of “anecdote
and humor” (Cash, 2006, p. 88). A colleague
encouraged Waterhouse to “Persevere and you will
find a reward. Persue [sic] your plan of Natural
History with courage, BOTANY especially, which
will not fail to raise up friends and supporters. On
this subject I will venture to prophecy, it will grow
into an establishment” (Cash, 2006, p. 87).
At the urging of his students, Waterhouse
published 15 of his lectures in the Monthly
Anthology (Waterhouse, 1804b, 1805, 1807, 1808),
a literary journal published in Boston. Although
his students wanted him to include selections
from notes on the mineral, vegetable, and animal
kingdoms, he decided that “mineralogy would be
less popular than botany” and that including both
the animal and vegetable kingdoms would be “less
likely to attract the attention and patronage of
readers of both sexes” (Waterhouse, 1811, p. vi).
Thus, “The Botanist” was serialized.
As a result of these published lectures, “several
gentlemen of opulence and literary influence in the
government of the University came to the resolution
of laying a foundation for a Professorship of Botany
and Entomology; to which they determined to
annex an extensive Botanic Garden” (Humphrey,
1896, p. 32). Waterhouse assumed his new title,
and the Harvard Botanic Garden was established in
1805. This was the fifth botanic garden established
140
Plant Science Bulletin 57(4) 2011
in the United States, and it eventually would
be a factor in the appointment of Asa Gray to
the faculty at Harvard (Darlington, 1848, p. 22;
Sundberg, unpublished). America’s first endowed
professorship of botany (and entomology) and the
Botanic Garden were funded by a subscription of
$30,000 to $40,000, a grant of two townships from
the legislature, and for the Botanic Garden project,
aid from the Massachusetts Society for promoting
Agriculture (Humphrey, 1896, pp. 33-34).
Revisions of “The Botanist” articles, along
with five new lectures, were compiled in The
Botanist (Waterhouse, 1811; Table 1), a textbook
dedicated to the late president, John Adams, who
promoted natural history studies as a means of
self-improvement. In this work, Waterhouse noted
the significance of Linnaeus in formulating not
just a system of classification but an entire botany
curriculum: “We would define Botany to be that
branch of Natural History which teaches the
anatomy, physiology, and economy of vegetables
… we avow Linnaeus to be our lawful chief; and
his Philosophia Botanicum our rallying point
and standard” (Waterhouse, 1811, p. 17). He also
stressed that botanical instruction should not be
restricted to the medical school curriculum: “From
what has been said, the trans-Atlantic disciples of
Linnaeus will see the reason, and therefore excuse
the popular dress, in which Botany, that beautiful
handmaiden of Medicine, has been introduced to
the inhabitants of a region, characteristically called
by the English a century ago, THE WILDERNESS”
(Waterhouse, 1811, p. viii). Furthermore, whereas
classification was important, Waterhouse considered
other aspects of botany to be essential:
To be able to pronounce, at first sight, the name of
each mineral, to distinguish one genus of plant from
another, and to discriminate stuffed animals in a
museum were, it seems, enough to entitle a man to
be considered a Natural Historian: when, at the same
time, he perhaps knew nothing of the anatomy of a
seed, and of its gradual development into a perfect
plant and flower, producing again a seed or epitome
of its parent, capable of generating its kind forever.…
To know the name of a plant, and to be able to
ascertain its place in the Linnaean system, is, in
the opinion of many, to be a botanist; although
such a person may be entirely unacquainted with
its anatomy, or organic structure, and ignorant of
its peculiar, or medicinal qualities; as well as of the
nature of its food, and the means of its nourishment;
yet these are the things which principally govern its
nature.…
It is of importance however that one universal
language should be adopted by botanists; but it is
wrong to make that, and classification, the primary
object. Agreeably to this doctrine is the sentiment of
the famous Rosseau, [sic, 1787] who, in his Letters on
the Elements of Botany says, “I have always thought it
possible to be a very great botanist, without knowing
so much as one plant by name.” (Waterhouse, 1811,
pp. xi-xiv)
Waterhouse, the physician naturalist, was not
inclined toward classification. He did not follow
strictly to the sequence of topics prescribed by
Linnaeus or any of the other European botanists
of the day. In fact, the 15 published lectures in
the Monthly Anthology did not include one on the
Linnaean system, and he purposely tried to avoid
any terms with sexual connotation. He reported that
this discretionary omission became more and more
unmanageable, and he finally dropped it after “He
communicated his delicate plan to a sensible friend
… une sage femme … [whose] answer determined
its fate.… What you call the objectionable part of
botany is the principal stimulus to its study. Divest it
of that charm, and you will diminish the number of
its admirers among the men” (Waterhouse, 1811, pp.
190-191). Thus, the Linnaean classification system
became the subject of chapter 17 in his textbook,
in which he tried to circumvent the possible
objection by some parents to the classification of
plants by their sexual characteristics by replacing
the Linnaean metaphor of generation with that of
nutrition (Table 2). Whereas classification was not
included, the life of Linnaeus was the subject of
both lecture 6 and chapter 8. Waterhouse’s plan of
study began with a brief introduction to botany and
the importance of microscopic investigation. “If he
[the student] view the plant through a microscope,
he will discover in it different orders of vessels,
like those of an animal; and should he submit it
to a careful and nice anatomical investigation, he
will be convinced that a plant possess a vascular
stem” (Waterhouse, 1811, pp. 18). He introduced
the seed in chapter 2 and then proceeded with
a plan of study allowing students to follow the
growth and development of the plants, “Hence, the
inquirer learns that a growing plant is not only a
regularly organized body … but is … a living one”
(Waterhouse, 1811, p. 18). Waterhouse proposed
and used basically the same inquiry the Botanical
Society of America recently developed as the first
module in PlantingScience—the power of seeds!
141
Plant Science Bulletin 57(4) 2011
In teaching Botany, different authors have adopted
different plans. Some begin with a description of the
leaf; then of the stem; next the flower; afterwards the
fruit, strictly so called, and lastly the seed. Others
commence with the flower, then they describe the
fruit and seed conjunctly, and lastly the root. We
shall pursue a different order. We shall begin with
describing a seed; after demonstrating its structure,
we shall show that every seed contains, under several
membranes, the future plant in miniature. There we
may see by the help of a microscope, that the embryo
plant has, not only a little radicle, which is hereafter
to become the root, but also two diminutive leaves,
which hereafter become the herb. We shall then
endeavour to show how the embryo plant, when
placed in a due degree of moisture, and a just degree
of heat, and at such a proper depth in the ground,
as not to exclude it from the vivifying influence of
the air, gradually unfolds itself; the radicle extending
itself into a root, which attaches itself to the earth,
and the little leaf aspiring into a stem. We shall show
how the foetal plant is supported by that part of the
seed, which answers to the albumen, or white of an
egg, until it is able to appear above ground, when
this temporary nutritive part drops off and decays,
leaving the plant, in future, to grow, and to flourish,
by imbibing solid nourishment from its motherearth;
and by inspiring vital air; and by inhaling the celestial
light. (Waterhouse, 1811, pp. 19-20)
Waterhouse described the anatomy of various
plant parts but unfortunately provided no
illustrations for readers. He did, however, make
frequent reference to Marcello Malpighi (1901)
and especially Nehemiah Grew (1965), who
included illustrations of their microscopic work
on plant anatomy. Similarly, his physiological
descriptions frequently referred to the work of
Hales (1969). Nonetheless, it is clear that he viewed
his descriptions as not just a summary of what
Table 1. Selected botanical textbooks published in the United States. For complete publication titles see
Literature Cited.
142
Plant Science Bulletin 57(4) 2011
was discovered in Europe but as a contribution
to the general understanding of plants, which
would continue to grow in America. Although
he recognized the contributions of the leading
European naturalists of his day, including Grew,
Hales, Du Hamel, Linnaeus, and Darwin (Erasmus),
who described both morphology and anatomical
detail of plants, he felt these advancements were
achieved primarily because they “had the means for
examining these things” (Waterhouse, 1811, p. 67).
Now that microscopes were becoming available in
the United States, he was convinced that Americans
soon would be making valuable contributions to
botanical understanding.
It is interesting that both in the articles (lecture
11) and in his text (chapter 19), Waterhouse
included “Women in Botany”: “The history of every
civilized nation, nay every man’s own recollection,
affords abundant proofs, that the female mind is
equally capable with that of the male” (Waterhouse,
1811, p. 298). As an example, he presented Elizabeth
Blackwell (1839), whose drawings at the Physic
Garden in Chelsea (London) were compiled in
the two-volume A Curious Herbal, containing 500
illustrations of the most useful plants that were used
in the practice of physic, engraved on folio copper
plates after drawings taken from life. “The Botanist
cannot too strongly recommend to his fair readers
the art of delineation or drawing… This art is not
merely in itself amusing, but may be highly useful
and important…” (Waterhouse, 1811, p. 215).
Waterhouse, who composed his lectures
at the same time Goethe was working on his
Metamorphosis of Plants, was profoundly influenced
by Grew, Malphigi, and the other early plant
anatomists. His training, however, was from the
medical bias, and he was not connected with the
new professional botanists who were beginning to
work in Europe at that time. Yet his work paralleled
that of the Frenchman Charles-François Brisseau de
Mirbel (1802) and the Germans Christian Konrad
Sprengel (1793) and Ludolph Christian Treviranus
(1806), who felt “…that the examination of the
internal structure of plants, as well as the describing
them according to Linnaean patterns, was a part of
botanical enquiry…” (von Sachs, 1906, p. 257). He
observed plant movements, particularly in flowers,
“Where their motions seem, at times, to mimic
animal life” (Waterhouse, 1811, p. 217). He must
also have been aware of the work by contemporary
European chemists and physiologists who were
demonstrating the relationship between light,
Table 2. Comparison of Benjamin Waterhouse’s lessons in botany, published as “The Botanist” in the Monthly
Anthology (1804, 1805, 1807, and 1808), and the corresponding chapters of his textbook, The Botanist (1811).
143
Plant Science Bulletin 57(4) 2011
oxygen, and carbon dioxide (“In the day the leaves
of plants exhale moisture and oxygen gas, and
absorb carbonic acid gas; but during the night,
they emit carbonic acid gas and absorb oxygen gas”
[Waterhouse, 1811, p. 154]) and that not only water,
soil, and warmth but also oxygen are necessary
for seed germination to occur. Given the proper
conditions, he noted that “Indian corn seeds can
germinate after 70 years” and that “1012 seeds of
tobacco weigh 1 grain” (Waterhouse, 1811, p. 28).
It is interesting that he described the physiology
of plant movements at the same time Maria E.
Jackson (1811) published Sketches of the Physiology
of Vegetable Life in London, which was concerned
primarily with insectivorous plants and plant traps.
Today Waterhouse is known primarily for
introducing the smallpox vaccine to the United
States, but in his lifetime he also was devoted to
botany instruction in the American colleges:
The foundation, or ground work of this independent
and salutiferous profession [natural history] is the
science of Botany; a science of as great importance
to the youth of America as any now taught in our
colleges, that alone excepted which has for its great
object the cultivation of the human heart.
It may perhaps be said that this branch of
knowledge has not been neglected among us, and that
the seeds of it were sown more than sixteen years since
at Cambridge.* [footnote reference to Waterhouse,
1804a] Be it so—Their growth has nevertheless been
slow. Whether this is be owing to the soil, or the
cultivators, we leave to the investigation of others;
observing only, that a private individual, however
cordially disposed to rear the nemorale templum, can
do but little without the assistance, support, and co-
operation of the constituted fantores of science and of
government. (Waterhouse, 1804b, p. 392)
Waterhouse might have felt himself to be a lone
“cultivator,” but the botanical discipline was growing
in European colleges, and that movement already
had begun to expand in the United States. The
Botanist was not well received. A New York reviewer
said, “Though we do not think the performance
before us will supersede the use of the elementary
books, we nevertheless consider it as indicting
the industrious research and scientific zeal of the
author.… He has not adhered to rigid method, but
makes his observations frequently in a desultory
way” (Anonymous, 1812). To Waterhouse’s dismay,
Federalist booksellers in Boston and Salem would
not even carry the book. John Adams’ replied
to Waterhouse, “The Booksellers in Boston and
Salem who refused to take any of them, disliket the
Dedicator as well as the Dedicatee” (Cash, 2006, p.
293). Waterhouse’s successor in materia medica at
Harvard, Jacob Bigelow, was more successful with
his American edition of Smith’s An Introduction
to Physiological and Systematical Botany (Smith,
1814; Table 1). Similarly, his replacement at the
Botanic Garden, Thomas Nuttall, produced a
better-known textbook (Nuttall, 1827; Table 1) that
emphasized taxonomically useful morphology and
the Linnaean system.
Benjamin Smith Barton’s
Botanical Textbook
In 1782 William Bartram was offered a
professorship in botany at the College of
Philadelphia, but he declined. As a result, when
Benjamin Smith Barton enrolled there in 1785
(three years after the founding of the Harvard
College medical school in Boston), he chose to
work under the chemist Benjamin Rush. This
was an auspicious year for botany in the United
States because, near the end of the year, the
nurseryman Humphry Marshall published “…
the first treatise on American plants, written by
a native American and printed in this country…”
(Darlington, 1848, p. 28). Marshall (1785; Table 1)
wrote Arbustrum Americanum to provide concise
descriptions of the common woody plants and
their economic uses, primarily for use by farmers
and settlers in rural areas. Marshall meant the book
to be an encouragement to its readers to become
knowledgeable enough about botany to make
additional observations and useful discoveries
about the uses of plants in their areas. It was the
earliest example of a method, continued by Barton,
of combining botanical classification with materia
medica and native use of plants (Schiebinger and
Swan, 2005). It is likely that Marshall’s book had an
early influence on Barton; it was the only American
book Barton later would cite in his botanical
textbook.
Barton was born in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, in
1766 and developed an interest in botany from his
youth, learning the names of the local plants around
Lancaster from his father. Thus, when Barton
arrived at the College in Philadelphia, he was eager
to take a botany course from Kuhn. However, as
mentioned above, Kuhn had offered “Botany” only
once and not as a formal college course, so Barton’s
144
Plant Science Bulletin 57(4) 2011
botanical training was delayed until he began the
medical program at Edinburgh. Even then, his
formal training was limited to materia medica, as
he informed readers in the preface to A Discourse…
that he had “never attended any lecture, however
imperfect, on the Natural History of Botany”
(Barton, 1807). On his return in 1789, Barton was
elected professor of natural history and botany
at the College of Philadelphia (Figure 4), and his
botany lectures were given in the late spring: “The
lectures on Botany commence, annually, about
the middle of April, and terminate in the first
week of July” (Barton, 1803, verso of title page). In
1791 the College of Philadelphia merged with the
University of Pennsylvania, and his appointment
in natural history and botany was confirmed. He
also assumed the professorship of materia medica
from Kuhn when the latter retired in 1796 (Ewan
and Ewan, 2007).
Figure 4. Benjamin Smith Barton, 1789, by Samuel
Jennings. (Used with permission of the American
Philosophical Society.)
In the opinion of at least some students, Barton
was a superior teacher. Years later, William
Darlington fondly recalled his botany professor:
“Professor Barton, in those days, occasionally
gave a course of Lectures on Natural History
and Botany, to small classes in the University of
Pennsylvania (one of which courses, in 1803-1804,
the writer had the privilege of attending): and
there can be no doubt that he did more than any
of his contemporaries, in diffusing a taste for the
natural sciences, among the young men who then
resorted to that school” (Darlington, 1849, p. 24). It
is possible that Darlington used Barton’s Elements
of Botany—the first textbook of botany produced in
the United States—because Barton self-published
300 copies in 1803 (Table 1; Figure 5; Ewan and
Ewan, 2007). However, Darlington’s opinion of the
book was somewhat mixed: “Though somewhat
diffuse, it was a useful and dependable performance”
(Darlington, 1849, p. 24). The following year, a
British edition of considerably larger circulation
was published in London (Barton, 1804).
Barton’s 500-page text is divided into three
parts and opens with a folding figure. At Barton’s
direction, the first plate, Sarracenia purpurea, was
printed facing the title page—an attractive and
provocative introduction to the text! The first part
is morphological and is divided into three chapters:
the root, the herb (shoot), and the fructification
(flower). Although this part is primarily terminology
and examples, some physiology and uses of the
various parts are introduced. His original intent
was to focus part two on physiology. “The study
of VEGETABLE PHYSIOLOGY has long been
one of my most favorite pursuits. I have always
considered it as the richest portion of Botany. I
believe its practical tendency is highly important.”
(Barton, 1803, p. viii). Although some physiology is
inserted into each of the main sections of this part,
most of the description is of an anatomical nature,
covering general anatomy, the “vessels of plants,”
and the structure and uses of leaves. The final part
is an elaboration of the sexual system of Linnaeus.
Throughout the book, he makes frequent reference
to Linnaeus and occasionally to other botanists.
In his appendix, he provides comparisons of 17
other classification systems used by botanists since
the time of Caesalpinus in 1583. At the end of the
book are the remaining 29 plates with explanation
pages; 24 of the sketches are by William Bartram
(Slaughter, 1996, p. 247).
Barton noted the difficulty of completing this
work, in part because of his teaching schedule, which
consumed seven months of the year (Barton, 1803,
p. vi), and also because “The difficulty of composing
an elementary work on Botany, or any other
Science which, like Botany, is frequently changing
its aspect, from the discovery of new species, and
the researches and experiments of ingenious men,
will be readily conceived and acknowledged. This
145
Plant Science Bulletin 57(4) 2011
migrants degenerated when they settled in
America. This idea was popular in Europe from the
1770s to the 1790s and engaged Benjamin Franklin
and especially Thomas Jefferson in refuting this
popular European belief. Nevertheless, it persisted
into the early 1800s (Dugatkin, 2009). The potential
attribution of “degeneracy” did not hinder Barton’s
English editor who said, “…he found it written in so
popular a manner, with so much greater variety of
matter than is contained in our present elementary
treatises on the subject, that he had not a doubt of
its proving acceptable to the public” (Barton, 1804,
p. xi). Later, Maria Jackson (1811, p. 2) noted in
her elementary text for British women, “To Dr.
Benjamin Barton, an American, we are indebted
for the first English elementary treatise, which,
with an extensive delimitation of systematical
botany, has combined a succinct view of the
physiology of vegetation; mingling with the whole
a variety of curious fact and observation from
which the young student may derive a considerable
portion of instruction and amusement.”
Indeed,
Barton’s (1803) textbook preceded Smith’s (1809)
introductory British textbook by several years,
and its only English-language competitors were
Rose’s (1775) translation of Linnaeus and Martyn’s
translation of Rousseau (1787). William J. Hooker,
who later became the first director of Kew, called
Barton a “great promoter of science, especially
Botany, whose Elementary Botany is full of
entertaining anecdotes” (Hooker, 1825, p. 271).
Nevertheless, Barton’s English editor made some
notable changes beyond exchanging some English
plants for American ones in the text. The first
striking difference is that the original two volumes
were compressed into one, in part by reducing the
font, and more importantly by making significant
editorial deletions to the third part. The other
striking difference is that the plates were colored
(at least in the copy at the Missouri Botanical
Garden—the version on Google Books is not),
though the magnificent Plate One was reduced in
size and reoriented to fit a normal page facing the
title page. The editor also moved the descriptions of
sexual reproduction from part one to part two: “…
and in a single instance the Editor has not hesitated
to give a turn to a paragraph, directly opposite to
the design of the Author; but for this he is confident
he shall be thanked by every friend to female
delicacy and virtue” (Barton, 1804, p. xii).
I have given a note to the last paragraph the
analogical name by which Linnaeus has thought
proper to designate the stigma. For that name there
difficulty is peculiarly experienced by Americans,
who, not withstanding the rapid growth of science
in their country, are (with respect to the Science
of the European nations) the inhabitants, as it
were, of an Ultima Thule. I have to regret that in
the composition of this work I often stood in need
of that assistance, which it would have been easy
to have obtained in Europe” (Barton, 1803, p. xi).
Even so, he later acknowledged that “Botany has,
certainly, been cultivated, with more attention and
success, in the United-States, than any other branch
of Natural History” (Barton, 1807, p. 39).
Figure 5. Barton’s Elements of Botany (1803), the
first botanical textbook printed in the United States.
(Photographed, with permission, by the author.)
Given Barton’s acknowledgement of the
provincial state of botany in the former colony, it
is perhaps surprising that his self-published text
was picked up and reprinted the following year in
London. This is especially true in light of the theory
of American degeneracy, which supposed that
not only were the plants and animals of America
inferior to those of Europe, but even the European
146
Plant Science Bulletin 57(4) 2011
have heard during the week—It is indeed...a highly
delightful study but I believe that our venerable and
eminent preceptor would make anything so. I have
seen him take up a poplar leaf which I had trodden
on, and thought destitute of every source of enquiry,
and talk most earnestly and eloquently for a quarter
of an hour on it… (Ewan and Ewan, 2007, p. 629)
Although Barton died in 1815, a revised third
edition of Elements of Botany was published in 1827,
and a new revised edition of his textbook, with a
biographical sketch by his son William Paul Crillon
Barton, was published in 1836—the same year Asa
Gray would publish his Elements of Botany. The
1827 edition was virtually a reprint of the second
edition with a few unexplained anomalies. The title
page reads “3rd edition, 1827,” but on the verso,
privilege of the clerk of Pennsylvania (in which the
seal is actually printed as opposed to being stamped
in the earlier edition), it is dated 1812 in the first
paragraph, though the last line of the second
paragraph reads, “The third edition, corrected
and greatly enlarged. In two volumes. Vol. I.” The
only other change is at the end of the explanation
of plates. In the explanations of both the third and
fourth plates, p. 320 faces p. 320* and verso of 320*
is 321*. In the third edition, p. 321 faces p. 321* but
then continues properly with pp. 322-324. There
is no explanation for duplicating the page number
and adding an asterisk. The revised 1836 edition
has normal consecutive page numbering in the
plate explanations.
Presumably both these later
editions were authorized by Barton’s son, William
P. C. Barton, who succeeded his father as professor
of materia medica and botany at the University of
Pennsylvania. His syllabus (1819) followed the text
precisely, and the course, like his father’s, consisted
of three lectures and one or two excursions every
week.
David Hosack in New York
David Hosack (Figure 6), a contemporary of
Barton, was born in New York City in 1769, the son
of an “up-and-coming shopkeeper” (Hoge, 2007, p.
3). He entered Columbia College (previously King’s
College and later Columbia University) in 1786,
where he excelled in the arts. He was encouraged
by his professors to go into law but was fascinated
with medicine. After fits and starts in medicine
at Columbia, and later the College of New Jersey
(later Princeton), he transferred to the University
of Pennsylvania in 1790, where Barton had recently
taken a position. “Influenced by both [Barton and
is, I think, as much, and even more, foundation, than
for some others which the burning imagination of the
northern naturalist has imposed, not only upon the
organa sexualia, but upon other parts of the plant.
It is to be regretted, that Linnaeus so frequently
indulges in the use of terms which might, without
any real injury to his writings, have been dispensed
with… (Barton, 1804, p. 198)
The success of Barton’s text in America is
evidenced by the fact that he revised and expanded
the two-volume work in 1812 (volume 1) and 1814
(volume 2). Although he intended to publish a
Ladies Botany and advertised for subscriptions
in 1811, this work was never published (though
the manuscript exists in Barton’s papers; Ewan
and Ewan, 2007, p. 636). It may simply have been
easier to revise his previous work. He returned to
his original format with little change to part one
except for a section on “perspiration of plants.” Part
two was nearly doubled in size by the addition of a
section on sexual reproduction in plants and some
economic botany. In part three he again returned
to his original format but expanded coverage to
include liverworts, algae, and fungi. Two notable
additions were a 20-page index to common and
scientific names at the end of volume 1 and a 12-
page index to terms at the end of volume 2. The
other notable changes were the addition of 10 new
plates and a multiple-page expansion of the notes to
the Sarracenia plate, including speculations on the
function of the pitcher leaves.
Barton’s success as a botany teacher was because
of “…at least one very high and important quality—
and earnest and exciting enthusiasm, by which
he induced his pupils to engage in the study of
the science with a corresponding earnestness,
accompanied by a resolution to teach themselves”
(Middleton, 1936, p. 480). This enthusiasm was
generated, in part, by field experience. “I this day
closed my course in Botany by a lecture at the
University & an excursion to Landreth’s garden.
This is the first time, I have ever taken my class to
Landreth’s—The permission to take it, I consider a
valuable acquisition to my class” (Ewan and Ewan,
2007, p. 627). Over the years, he also took classes
on field trips to William Hamilton’s “Woodlands,”
Bartram’s garden, the Schuylkill and Delaware
rivers, as well as Landreth’s and other places. A
former student describes a field trip experience as
follows:
In these excursions we reduce to actual practice
on any plant that presents those doctrines which we
147
Plant Science Bulletin 57(4) 2011
which Hosack annotated heavily (Ewan and Ewan,
2007, p. 417), undoubtedly formed the basis of
Hosack’s future lectures.
After spending the summer with Curtis, Hosack
spent four months with James Edward Smith. Smith
introduced him to Sir Joseph Banks and Thomas
Martyn, Regius Professor of Botany at Cambridge
University. But more importantly, he “…gave
him access to the great herbarium assembled by
the celebrated Swedish naturalist Carl von Linné
(Linnaeus).” Smith, who was president of the
Linnean Society, arranged for Hosack to be elected
a fellow of the Linnean Society and made a gift of
a collection of Linnaeus’ duplicate specimens for
Hosack to take back to America. No record exists of
the number of specimens or of the taxa represented
in this gift, but the collection eventually was owned
by the Lyceum of Natural History of New York (now
the New York Academy of Sciences). It was lost,
probably in the fire of 1866. “Without doubt, the
Hosack Herbarium contained the only substantial
number of Linnaean specimens ever brought to the
United States” (Robbins, 1960, p. 293).
Soon after Hosack’s return in 1795, he was
offered the botanical professorship in the medical
school at Columbia College and the following year
also assumed the professorship of materia medica.
Not surprisingly, considerable similarity exists
between Curtis’ lectures and the syllabus Hosack
was required by his university to publish. “At a
meeting of the Trustees of Columbia College, held
at the College Hall, on Monday, the ninth day of
July, 1792: Ordered, That every Professor of this
College who teaches by Lecture, do publish within
one year, a Syllabus of his Course of Lectures”
(Hosack, 1795). This earlier published syllabus
had only two minor differences from the version
he later published (Hosack, 1814, p. 462). First,
the earlier account included a footnote that was
deleted in the latter: “*For the instruction of those
who may not be acquainted with the principles
of the new system of Chemistry the Professor
takes occasion to introduce a general sketch of
the differences and improvements lately made in
this branch of Science—referring for a particular
detail to the valuable lectures of Professor Mitchill”
(Hosack, 1795, p. 8). Second, a single phrase, “have
no existence,” was added to part one, E, Anatomy
of Plants number 8 “Trachae, or air vessels—have
no existence—Structure and functions of plants
illustrated by dissection and experiment—”. The
significance of “have no existence” is unclear.
Rush], he maintained an independent spirit in the
years to come. With Barton he shared an active
interest in botany and the hope for an ‘American
Flora’” (Ewan and Ewan, 2007, p. 229).
Figure 6. David Hosack. (Image in the public domain.)
Hosack completed his M.D. degree in 1791, but like
most of his contemporaries, he felt it necessary to
go to Europe to complete his training. The following
year he traveled to the University of Edinburgh,
where he was “Mortified by my ignorance of botany
with which other guests were conversant. I resolved,
at that time, whenever an opportunity might offer to
acquire a knowledge of that department of science”
(Robbins, 1964, p. 24). The following year was spent
in London, where he studied with William Curtis
and Sir James Edward Smith, president of the
Linnean Society. Curtis, the editor of The Botanical
Magazine, had just completed building his botanic
garden at Brompton, which was arranged by
medical and ornamental uses, and he allowed
Hosack to visit daily. Once a week, Curtis himself
led “an excursion” through the garden for friends
and acquaintances. Hosack took advantage of this
opportunity throughout the summer of 1793.
Curtis prepared a series of lectures (published
posthumously by his son-in-law; Curtis, 1805),
which probably included much of the information
presented to Hosack on these visits. Robbins (1964)
suggests that these notes, and Barton’s (1803) text,
148
Plant Science Bulletin 57(4) 2011
soft spungy [sic] paper such as Stationers call
blotting paper or between sheets of the common
wrapping paper; either of the last made into books
will be found very convenient for the purpose. The
quantity of paper to be placed between the different
plant is to be determined by their structure and the
quantity of moisture they contain.
• When they are thus carefully arranged for
drying they are to be put under pressure—some
have contrived a machine for this purpose which
consists of two pieces of plank, with screws to
increase or diminish the pressure at pleasure, but it
is equally convenient to produce the same degree of
pressure by books or weights—it may be observed
that the degree of pressure must be regulated by the
structure of the plants.
• The paper in which they are placed must be
renewed every 24 hours until perfectly dry. In
removing them from one book to another, care
must be taken that the flowers be not injured and
that they be not long exposed to the air as they are
apt to shrivel.
• When they are thus perfectly dried, they are to
be removed and placed, every species by itself, in a
large book for the purpose.
• There have been many other methods employed
in drying plants, but after various trials, the
process I have described, I find to be the least
troublesome and the most successful. (Robbins,
1964, pp. 55-56)
At about the same time Hosack was establishing
the Elgin Botanic Garden, he made the acquaintance
of the young law student Amos Eaton. The practical
Eaton had a love of natural history and was drawn
to Hosack and botany even as he studied for the bar.
Eaton would later share this love of botany with the
young John Torrey, whom he tutored for several
years. Unlike his mentor, Torrey sought a career
in medicine and botany and began his studies
under Hosack in 1815, receiving his M.D. degree
in 1818. Hosack’s relationship with Eaton would
sour, but Eaton and Torrey would remain botanical
confidants until Eaton’s death.
The garden provided field instruction opportunities
for Hosack and his students. He likely followed
Curtis’ (1792) Proposals for a Course of Herborizing
Excursions. Each student should collect a small
specimen of every plant examined and place it in
a collection book in the order gathered. After three
or four hours of collecting, the class reconvenes,
and the instructor takes an hour or two to go
The first part of the course concentrated on the
structure and function of plants, drawing on John
Ray, Nehemiah Grew, and Linnaeus. Part two
considered the history of botanical classification
and the Linnaean system.
Hosack’s experience working in Curtis’ Brompton
garden confirmed in his mind the utility of a
botanic garden for teaching.
I now readily perceived that an abstract account
of the principles of these sciences, as taught by books,
coloured engravings, or even with the advantages of
an herbarium, must necessarily be very imperfect
and unsatisfactory, when compared with the
examination of living plants, growing in their proper
soils with the advantages of culture; … and that a
botanical establishment was indispensably necessary
in order to teach this branch of medical science with
complete effect. (Robbins, 1960, p. 296)
In 1801 Hosack purchased 20 acres of land north
of the city (including what is now the plaza of
Rockefeller Center) to build a botanic garden for
teaching botany and materia medica. For 10 years he
used his personal fortune and contacts to build the
Elgin Botanic Garden. By 1806, nearly 2000 plants
were under cultivation on the grounds and in three
glass houses “exhibiting a front of one hundred and
eighty feet” (Hosack, 1811, p. 3). Among the plant
contributors was Thomas Jefferson, who shared
seeds sent from France (Robbins, 1964, p. 65). In
addition to the living collection, Hosack sought
to build the herbarium, providing directions for
preparing specimens
similar to those we follow to
this day:
• As the flower and leaf are parts of the plant
from which the botanic characters are to be
determined, the specimen to be taken should
possess both the flower and leaves in their most
perfect state.
• In collecting a specimen of an Herbaceous
plant, care must be taken to cut it close to the
ground, that the leaves near the root which are the
most perfect, may be preserved.
• In collecting a specimen of a Tree or Shrub it is
only necessary to cut one of the smallest branches
containing the flowers and some of the most perfect
leaves, from whatever part of the tree or shrub they
may be procured.
• They should be gathered on a dry day.
• They are to be carefully placed between the
leaves of a large book, or between sheets of large
149
Plant Science Bulletin 57(4) 2011
Botany is a branch of Natural History that
provides many advantages; it contributes to the
health of the body and cheerfulness of disposition, by
presenting an inducement to take air and exercise; it
is adapted to the simplest capacity, and the objects of
its investigation present themselves without expense
or difficulty, which renders them attainable to every
rank in life; but with all these allurements, till of late
years has been confined to the circle of the learned,
which may be attributed to those books that treated
it, being principally written in Latin: a difficulty that
deterred many, particularly the female sex, from
attempting to obtain a knowledge of the science…
(Wakefield, 1807, pp. i-iv)
James Edward Smith (1809), in his An
Introduction to Physical and Systematic Botany,
went further to justify botany as a means of
promoting the intellectual abilities of young people.
In addition to the content of learning the Linnaean
system of classification, other reasons to teach
botany included the following:
To explain and apply to practice those
beautiful principles of method, arrangement and
discrimination, which render botany not merely an
amusement, a motive for taking air and exercise, or
an assistant to many other arts and sciences; but a
school for the mental powers, an alluring excitement
for the young mind to try its growing strength, and a
confirmation of the most enlightened understanding
in some of its sublimest most important truths.
(Smith, 1809, pp. x-xi)
The idea that botany was an appropriate school
topic was picked up almost simultaneously
throughout New England a decade later. In
Northampton, Massachusetts, Jane Welch (1819)
published a small, 34-page booklet titled, A
Botanical Catechism (Table 1). Welch suggested,
“The teacher will find it expedient to have an
example of some perfect and complete flower,
for the purpose of pointing out the elementary
organs as the answers are given” (p. 24). “It is the
best book for very young students, particularly for
ladies’ schools…” (Eaton, 1820, p. 4). In Hartford,
Connecticut, the following year, George Sumner
(1820; Table 1) drew heavily on Smith’s (1809)
introductory text to produce A Compendium of
Physiological and Systematic Botany. At 300 pages,
plus figures, “This compendium was designed as
an introduction to the study of American plants,
and it is published for the convenience of those
who wish to pursue it...to consult the floras which
have, within a short time, been published in various
through a demonstration for each plant, including
identification and description of key features.
According to Robbins (1964), Hosack’s copy of
Proposals for a Course of Herborizing Excursions is
in the library of the New York Botanical Garden.
Within a few years, the expense of maintaining
the Elgin Garden was becoming a burden, and
Hosack eventually convinced the New York State
Legislature to purchase the garden in 1811 and
transfer it to Columbia College, where he could
still oversee operation. After the state agreed to
purchase the botanical garden, Hosack sold his
botanical library and donated his herbarium
(including the Linnaean specimens) to the New
York College of Physicians and Surgeons, where
he now taught after a merger with the Columbia
College medical school. However, after the spring
1813 semester, Hosack dropped his botany lectures,
and the course was no longer taught at Columbia.
Interest in botany as an adjunct to medical
teaching was waning; John Torrey, after he began
teaching chemistry and botany at the College
of Physicians and Surgeons in 1827, constantly
complained of his students’ lack of interest in the
natural sciences. At Columbia itself, botany as a
major subject had disappeared from the curriculum
and was not to be reinstated until near the end of the
century. (Robbins, 1964, p. 98)
Today Hosack is remembered primarily as the
attending physician to his good friend, Alexander
Hamilton, who died after his infamous duel with
Aaron Burr.
Bringing Botany to the
Schools
At the turn of the 19th century, a new interest
in botany began, not as the necessary handmaiden
of medicine but as a discipline of its own that was
worthy of study. This trend, begun in Europe, was
described by Wakefield (1807) in An Introduction to
Botany in a Series of Familiar Letters from a fictitious
Felicia to her sister, Constance. This fifth edition of
her work was republished in Boston in 1811 and
influenced contemporary American writers.
The design of the following Introduction to Botany,
is to cultivate a taste in young persons for the study
of nature.… Children are endowed with curiosity
and activity, for the purpose of acquiring knowledge.
Let us avail ourselves of these natural propensities,
and direct them to the pursuit of the most judicious
objects: none can be better adapted to instruct, and at
the same time amuse, than the beauties of nature.…
150
Plant Science Bulletin 57(4) 2011
sections of the United States…” (Sumner, 1820,
p. vi). In many ways it looks quite modern. The
introduction provides a brief history of botany
from Theophrastus in ancient Greece through his
contemporary botanists in Europe and the United
States. The next 200 pages begin with an overview
of plants and follow the plant life cycle from
germination through fruit formation. There are
separate chapters for each organ type, concentrating
primarily on anatomy and morphology, but unlike
Barton, Sumner includes a large physiological
chapter on “Saps and Secretions.” Classification
and the systems of Linnaeus and Jussieu are
covered briefly in the final chapters. This is the first
American introduction to the “natural system” of
classification.
Intermediate in size between Welsh’s and
Sumner’s texts is Locke’s (1819; Table 1) 160-
page Outlines of Botany, produced in New York.
Eaton called it “…an excellent elementary school
book” (Eaton, 1820, p. 4). (It is interesting that
my personal copy of Locke was used at a different
level—the College of Pharmacy of the City of New
York [Columbia University] in 1842!) Locke listed
four reasons to recommend science and the study
of botany in the schools:
• The science of botany is valuable, as medicine,
agriculture, and the arts are more or less dependant
upon it.
• The study recommends itself as a “rich source of
innocent pleasure”…
• The study is profitable to the young especially,
as it forms the mind and regulates the modes of
thinking…
• The study of nature is acknowledged to be
highly important, as it gives us just views of the
character of the Supreme Being (Locke, 1819, pp.
x-xii)
Locke went on to say, “The study of botany is
every year becoming more and more attended to
by academies and common schools, and from its
recommendations as a study for the young, every
encouragement should be afforded” (Locke, 1819,
pp. xii-xiii). His small book was divided into
five parts containing 13 chapters. Root, herbage,
and fructification filled the first half, parts one
to three. The Linnaean system was covered in
part four and anatomy and physiology in part
five. An interesting section at the end had some
observations on instruments for botanizing and the
method of preparing a herbarium. Recommended
instruments included a small knife, pair of scissors,
bodkin (dissecting needle), forceps, and glass or
microscope. “A simple glass of from one- to two-
inch focus, such as the watch-makers use, or a
penknife with a glass in the handle, as may now be
obtained in the shops, will answer very well” (Locke,
1819, p. 123). He provided instructions for making
a bodkin and forceps. In addition, one should have
a tin box for fresh specimens and a portfolio filled
with a parcel of paper and furnished with strings.
At the end of the text were three pages of 80 self-
test questions for students, which included the
pages where correct answers could be found. At
the end of the text were 16 plates of figures and a
good index. Locke provided some good advice to
teachers:
The student should, if possible, examine plants
from the very commencement of studying the
elements, especially those which are mentioned as
examples.… From what little experience I have had
in instructing, I cannot recommend to teachers to
oblige their pupils to commit any of the following
pages formally to memory; in doing which they are
by no means certain to get the ideas… (Locke, 1819,
pp. xiii-ix)
Amos Eaton: A New Way to Teach
The preceding quote from Locke sounds
remarkably like the philosophy of Amos Eaton,
“…a pivotal person in the teaching of American
botany” (Stuckey and Burk, 2000, p. 164) and “…
our first professional teacher of natural history,
and especially of botany…” (Humphrey, 1896,
p. 35). Eaton (Figure 7) was born on a farm near
what is now Chatham, New York, in 1776, and as a
youth acquired practical experience as a surveyor.
In 1799 he graduated from Williams College in
Massachusetts, and although he was interested in
the natural sciences, he moved to New York City to
study law. In New York he met Dr. David Hosack,
the physician/botanist at what is now Columbia
University, and was an occasional houseguest.
Eaton arrived in New York at about the time
Hosack was building the Elgin Botanic Garden on
the site currently occupied by Rockefeller Center,
as noted above, but his primary study was law, and
he was admitted to the bar in 1802. He moved to
Catskill, New York, where he practiced law and
worked as a land agent and surveyor. But he also
continued his interest in natural history. He later
151
Plant Science Bulletin 57(4) 2011
noted, “In May, 1810, I had the first attempt in this
country at a popular course of lectures; with a view
to make practical Botanists of young persons of all
conditions and pursuits. For this class I compiled
a small elementary treatise” (Eaton and Wright,
1840, p. v). This treatise, The Young Botanist’s Tablet
of Memory (Eaton, 1810), was an 11-page pamphlet
that provided the definitions required to use the
Linnaean system as well as a synopsis of the classes
and orders of flowering plants. Memorization was a
component of botanical education but only so far as
to be useful in identifying plants. Nevertheless, the
last three pages provide etymological descriptions
of the Greek origins for the terms. Eaton was
interested in the practical application of botany and
the other sciences, not science for its own sake. As
a result, his teaching methods aimed for effective,
tangible results that empowered his students. Later
that summer he received a letter from Hosack:
I received yours of the 8th instant, and am happy
to be informed of the progress of the Botanical
Institution at Catskill, under your direction. You have
set an example that, I doubt not, will be followed by
many, if not most, of the Academies throughout the
state.
You have adopted, in my opinion, the true system
of education: and very properly address yourself to
the senses and to the memory, instead of the faculties
of judgment and reason, which are, comparatively, of
slow growth.
To your pupils and their teacher, as first in the field,
much praise is due. I doubt not they will reap both
pleasure and profit, as the reward of their enterprise.
If I can contribute to either, I shall be happy to do it,
in any manner that you may suggest. (Eaton, 1818,
p. 9)
The following year, Eaton was convicted of
forgery in a land dispute (he maintained his
innocence) and spent nearly five years in the New
York City jail. The jailer’s name was Torrey, and he
had a young son, John. “Already at the age of 15,
[John] Torrey had become interested in botany by
meeting in his father’s jail the enthusiastic Amos
Eaton, with whom he studied there” (Stuckey and
Burke, 2000, p. 188). Eaton and Torrey would
remain friends for life, and Torrey later bridged
the “hostility” of Asa Gray, Torrey’s protégé,
toward Eaton (McAllister, 1941, p. 238). On his
release, Eaton spent a year at Yale studying under
Benjamin Silliman and the botanist Eli Ives, where
he translated Richard’s Botanical Dictionary from
French. Then in 1817, he returned to his alma
mater, Williams College, as a lecturer in botany and
geology. His “small elementary treatise” of seven
years earlier was expanded for use by the class, as
few botanical books were available for students. At
the end of the year, in gratitude for his enthusiastic
mentorship, the students paid to publish the
work—the first edition of A Manual of Botany for
the Northern States (Eaton, 1817; Table 1). This
book, always following the Linnaean system, went
through eight editions by 1840. Eaton made a strong
impression on then 10-year-old Albert Hopkins
(future professor of astronomy at Williams), who
later commented on how the teacher sparked his
interest in science:
I will remember attending a lecture of his in my
native town, the first scientific lecture I ever attended,
and, if I may judge by the sharp outline of it still in my
mind, one of the most interesting and impressive.…
He had an easy flow of language, a popular address,
and a generous enthusiasm in matters of science,
which easily communicated itself to his pupils.
(Ballard, 1897, p. 203)
Figure 7. Amos Eaton. (Image in the public domain.)
Eaton was a missionary to local townspeople
throughout the region but also to neighboring
colleges. His first visit was to Northampton,
Massachusetts, where he was the first man in
America to enroll women in the study of science.
Mr. Amos Eaton was employed in this town
to deliver a course of evening lectures on Botany,
and a course of evening lectures [on] Chemistry,
Mineralogy, and Geology. As his class consisted
chiefly of ladies, and as these branches of learning
have not hitherto generally engaged the attention of
152
Plant Science Bulletin 57(4) 2011
that sex, we take the liberty to state that from this
experiment we feel authorized to recommend these
branches as a very useful part of female education.
(Ballard, 1897, p. 209)
It is interesting that by 1822, Eaton could write
that “The recommendation of the study of botany
to the attention of ladies, subscribed by the late
Governor Strong of Massachusetts, and others … is
unnecessary at this day; for I believe more than half
the botanists in New England and New York are
ladies” (Eaton, 1822, p. 11). His fame as a lecturer
in the Berkshires of Massachusetts spread south to
Albany, New York, and in 1818, Governor De Witt
Clinton invited him to present a course of lectures
before the New York State Legislature. He was so
well received that he moved to the Albany/Troy
area and concentrated on lecturing and geological
work along the route of the Erie Canal. In 1818, he
wrote the following in a letter to John Torrey:
Devised a new way of teaching botany … much
better for teacher and pupils.… I am to take five
classes for the season, in five neighboring villages.
Northampton is to be my headquarters. I lecture
at each every fifth week, through the season....
In this way every class will have the benefit of a
course keeping pace with the progress of vegetation.
(McAllister, 1941, p. 184)
Two years later Eaton confided the following to
Torrey:
I am now printing a little book of Exercises in
Botany [1820; Table 1] … it grew out of the necessities
known only to teachers.… The Exercises will contain
the generic descriptions of plants most common in all
the classes. Then a full list of all species in the manual,
arranged in the same way without descriptions. This
is to relieve the teacher while his pupils are labeling
plants. (McAllister, 1941, p. 221)
During this work, he cultivated a friendship
with the wealthy Stephen Van Rensselaer and in
1824 convinced him to found the Rensselaer School
at Troy, New York, with Eaton as senior professor.
This began the most productive and influential
period of his career.
Already at Williams College Eaton had
demonstrated the utility of the laboratory and
field trips in promoting student learning, and
these became the centerpiece of the Rensselaer
approach. In Europe, laboratories were beginning
to be used for instruction in chemistry, and medical
schools had small laboratories for the preparation
of materia medica, but at Rensselaer, Eaton
insisted that each of the sciences have a laboratory
where “students were to learn by doing, in sharp
contrast to the conventional method of learning
by rote” (Rezneck, 1971, p. 274). Botany laboratory
instruction was pioneered at Rensselaer in the
1820s, but it was an innovation that would not
have widespread adoption for another half century
(Rudolph, 1996). Student-active learning was the
key. “The pupil in the place of the professor, he
necessarily acquires a knowledge of the principles
of the science on which he lectures; while the
experimental demonstrations of the laboratory
render him familiar with the practical application of
those principles to agricultural and manufacturing
operations.” (Nason, 1887, p. 18)
The most distinctive character in the plan of the
school consists in giving the pupil the place of the
teacher in all his exercises. From schools or colleges
where the highest branches are taught to the common
village schools, the teacher always improves himself
more than he does his pupils. Being under the
necessity of relying upon his own resources and of
making every subject his own, he becomes an adept
as a matter of necessity. Taking advantage of this
principle, students of Rensselaer School learn by
giving experimental and demonstrative lectures with
experiments and specimens. (Good, 1941, p. 467)
Throughout his career, Eaton espoused what
now seems a contradictory philosophy of teaching
botany. On the one hand, he was an innovator in
designing and implementing student-centered
pedagogy that challenged students and promoted
self-discipline and discovery. On the other hand,
his approach to botany was diametrically opposed
to that of Waterhouse. Where the latter stressed the
structure and function of plants as living organisms,
Eaton’s botanical focus was rote taxonomy, as one of
his pupils aptly emphasized:
No one should ever be employed as a teacher of
Botany, unless he can give his pupils at sight the
names of at least four hundred species of indigenous
plants, growing in the vicinity of his school; and he
ought to be able to recognize from the mere habits of
plants six or eight hundred species. (Johnson, 1834,
p. vi)
Eaton saw his manuals as the perfect tool for
teaching botany to students. The language was
simple, the Linnaean system was functional for
identification and easy to apply, and he included
exotic species that had become domesticated. But
his protégé, John Torrey, was being influenced by
his own student, Asa Gray, who saw Eaton as old-
153
Plant Science Bulletin 57(4) 2011
fashioned and out of touch with modern botany
(the natural system). Gray also did not favor the
democratization of botany that resulted from
Eaton’s teaching-centered approach. Gray was on
the rise, and like Joseph Hooker in England, he was
struggling to raise the status of professional botany
among the sciences. Nevertheless, Eaton (1836)
pointed out that, whereas “the celebrated Hooker”
used the natural system and wrote in exquisite
Latin in his Flora Borealis Americana written “for
learned botanists,” he used the Linnaean system,
and English, for his system of British plants because
“The experience of nearly one hundred years has
proved to every unprejudiced mind, that no system
has appeared that can be compared with that of the
immortal Swede (Linneaus) for the facility with
which it enables any one, hitherto unpracticed
in botany, to arrive at the genus and species of a
plant” (Eaton, 1836
,
p. iv). Eaton goes on with his
justification:
It ought to be understood that from the beginning
of the Authors services in the cause of Botany, he
has never aspired to any thing above that of teacher,
translator, and compiler. He has made but few new
discoveries and constructed but few species. Hence
his manual has consisted of a series of advertising
sheets for aspiring botanists, and a depository of their
discoveries. (Eaton, 1836, p. iv)
Eaton had influence through his students who
carried on his philosophy well into the 19th century.
Among the most notable were a quartet of women:
Jane Welch, whose Botanical Catechism (1819) was
referred to above; Laura Johnson, author of the
Botanical Teacher (1834); and the sisters Emma
Willard and Almira Hart Lincoln Phelps. Phelps was
the author of Familiar Lectures on Botany (1853),
which would go through multiple editions and sell
more than 275,000 copies, primarily in schools and
women’s seminaries. Later, Eaton encouraged the
botanical discoveries of a young Elizabeth Knight
(future wife of Nathaniel L. Britton) by publishing
her finding of the rare curly grass fern from Nova
Scotia in 1879 (Kass, 1997).
Eaton had little sympathy for those promoting
botany as a tool to promote intellectual development or
as “a pleasing substitute for frivolous or mischievous
amusements etc., etc. When a parent or guardian
asks ‘What is botany good for?’ you must answer
that ‘it teaches the virtues of plants’—the practical
application of what good comes from plant study.”
His task was to train teachers to do this. Near the
end of his career, he wrote the following to teachers:
If you have any respect for yourselves, or for human
science, I beg that you will never lend your aid in that
public imposition which has, within the last dozen
years, degraded and debased the study of botany. I
mean that of pretending to teach practical botany by
school lessons, without having each student hold in
his hand a system of plants and living specimens for
perpetual demonstration…. It is true that pictures
may be studied; so may the picture of a blacksmith
shoeing a horse be studied. But can you become a
blacksmith by studying this picture? (Humphrey,
1896, p. 36)
Eaton is the fulcrum for a pivot in American
botanical instruction. He was the epitome of the
Linnaean approach to taxonomy in the United
States, but this system was in rapid decline as Asa
Gray and the Europeans developed and promoted
the natural system. At the same time, Eaton
developed a method of instruction, promoting
individual hands-on laboratory and field work by
students, and focusing on student-active learning
that foreshadowed Charles E. Bessey and others
at the end of the 19th century, as well as many of
the “innovations” of contemporary educational
pedagogy. It is interesting to note Eaton’s assessment
of botanical instruction near the end of his career in
1836:
A few words on the present state of botany in this
country, as a subject of study, may not be misplaced
here. The number of students in botany has greatly
increased and is daily increasing; but it is not as
well taught in most of our large schools at this date
as it was in the same, and in similar schools, six or
seven years since. At that time plants were collected
and analyzed by students, and extensive herbaria
were made by them…. Now a few “said off” lessons
from elementary treatises, without any exercises with
specimens, or with very superficial ones, seems to be
all that is required in some schools of considerable
celebrity, where botany is professionally taught.
(Eaton, 1936, pp. v-vi)
A Summary of the Early Years
In the United States, botanical education has a
history as long as its oldest college, Harvard. Its
inclusion in the curriculum was no doubt tied to
the divine creation of plants for the pleasure and
sustenance of man. Virtually all colonial college
curricula were designed “to preserve the purity and
continue the propagation of the faith” (Rudolph,
1977). However, this was an ephemeral inclusion
154
Plant Science Bulletin 57(4) 2011
presumably tied to the preferences of the first
president of the college. The first lasting impact
was that of Linnaeus’ Philosophia Botanica, which
not only provided the foundation for interpreting
his sexual system of classification but outlined
broadly a plan of study of the whole plant and the
foundations of botany as a discipline. The earliest
American instruction in this system was informal
home-schooling by knowledgeable parents, and this
would remain important well into the 19th century.
Formal instruction, with one notable exception,
remained tied to medicine and depended on
foreign instruction, particularly in England.
It is instructive that even today, the table of
contents of Linnaeus’ Philosophia Botanica (1751)
would provide a good initial outline of a course
syllabus in introductory botany. The methods of
instruction employed, however, would not be a
good model to follow. Colleges used the recitation
model, where students were responsible for reading
the text, listening to his (gender specification
intended) professor, and being able to recite the
memorized information back to the professor.
Botanists were among the first college professors
to use field and classroom observation to
supplement recitations. Waterhouse was among
the first to suggest that botany should be taught
as a stand-alone discipline rather than as simply a
component of medical instruction. He recognized
the importance of learning how to make and record
observations, and he used a microscope in his
teaching. He also employed the technique of inquiry,
challenging students to teach themselves, and had
access to the first university botanical garden in
the country, which was built specifically to support
student instruction. Barton, best known as the
author of the first American textbook of botany, was
a strong proponent of the field experience as a means
to learn about plants. This was a natural extension
of the herborizing excursions that he, Waterhouse,
and Hosack participated in as students in England.
Whereas Barton depended on the availability of a
number of local gardens in the Philadelphia area,
including Bartram’s Garden, which still exists, and
Waterhouse had benefactors build and donate a
garden to the college, Hosack built his own garden
in New York, which eventually was transferred to
the college, to support his botanical teaching. Each
of these American pioneers in botanical education
was trained in medicine, shared mentors and
collaborators, particularly in England, and, not
unexpectedly, had a strong British influence.
The notable exception to European influence in
botanical teaching was Amos Eaton, who never
traveled to Europe to study. He came from rural
New York, studied in rural Massachusetts, and
obtained a degree in law, not medicine. He was a
self-made man who dedicated himself to providing
the means for every young person, both men and
women, to learn how to learn. Whenever possible,
the outdoors and the laboratory were used as a
classroom, and students were given responsibility for
leading discussions and laboratory demonstrations.
The teacher was more a mentor than a professor.
Eaton’s primary concern was not to train professional
botanists but to train professional teachers who
could propagate the discipline among the citizenry.
By the beginning of the 19th century, a solid
botanical foundation was in place on which to
build botany as a professional basic science in the
colleges and to expand it into applied areas and
the curriculum for kindergarten through 12th
grade. However, a dichotomy also was established
between building a professional elite and building
an informed society, which mirrored political
factions in society as a whole. These subjects will
be the focus of part two of this series, which will
examine the continued development of American
botanical instruction from the early 19th century
through the founding of the Botanical Society of
America.
Acknowledgments
I want first to thank my wife, Sara, a colonial
historian who constantly encouraged me to look for
the bigger picture. Although many of the resources
cited are now available online, the collections of
the John Hay and John D. Rockefeller Jr. Libraries
at Brown University, the Anchutz and Spencer
Libraries at the University of Kansas, the Hale
Library at Kansas State University, the Missouri
Botanical Garden Library, and the William Allen
White Library at Emporia State University were
essential resources. I also want to thank Dr. Lee
Kass and one anonymous reviewer for insightful
critique of the original draft and their helpful
suggestions.
Literature Cited
ANONYMOUS. 1643. New Englands First Fruits: 2.
In refpect of the colledge, and the proceedings of
learning therein. New York: Joseph Sabin, 1865.
155
Plant Science Bulletin 57(4) 2011
ANONYMOUS. 1812. Review of The botanist.
Medical Repository 3: 370-376.
BALLARD, HARLAN H. 1897. Amos Eaton.
In: Collections of the Berkshire Historical and
Scientific Society. Pittsfield (MA): The Society.
BARTON, BENJAMIN SMITH. 1803. Elements
of botany: or, outlines of the natural history of
vegetables. Philadelphia: The author.
BARTON, BENJAMIN SMITH. 1804. Elements
of botany: or, outlines of the natural history of
vegetables. London: J. Johnson.
BARTON, BENJAMIN SMITH. 1807. A discourse
on some of the principal desiderata in natural
history, and on the best means of promoting
the study of this science in the United States.
Philadelphia: Denham & Town.
BARTON, BENJAMIN SMITH. 1812 (vol. 1) and
1814 (vol. 2). Elements of botany: or, outlines
of the natural history of vegetables. Illustrated
with 40 plates. The second edition, corrected and
greatly enlarged. In two volumes. Philadelphia:
The author.
BARTON, BENJAMIN SMITH. 1827. Elements
of botany: or, outlines of the natural history of
vegetables. Illustrated with 40 plates. The third
edition, corrected and greatly enlarged. In two
volumes. Philadelphia: Robert Desilver.
BARTON, BENJAMIN SMITH. 1836. Elements
of botany: or, outlines of the natural history of
vegetables. A new edition revised and condensed
with an account of the life and writings of
the author by William P.C. Barton, M.D.
Philadelphia: Robert Desilver.
BARTON, WILLIAM PAUL CRILLON. 1819.
Syllabus of the lectures delivered on vegetable
materia medica. Philadelphia: Skerrett.
BIGELOW, JACOB. 1814. An introduction to
physiological and systematical botany. Boston:
Bradford and Read.
BLACKWELL, ELIZABETH. 1839. A curious
herbal, containing 500 cuts of the most useful
plants which are now used in the practice of
physic, engraved on folio copper-plates, after
drawings taken from life. London: John Norse.
BRENDEL, FREDERICK. 1879. Historical sketch
of the science of botany in North America from
1635 to 1840. The American Naturalist 13: 754-771.
BRISSEAU DE MIRBEL, CHARLES-FRANÇOIS.
1802. Traité d’anatomie et de physiologie
végétale suivi de la Nomenclature méthodique
ou raisonnée des parties extérieures des Plantes,
et un Exposé succinct des Systèmes de Botanique
les plus généralement adoptés. Ouvrage servant
d’introduction L’Étude de la Botanique. 2 Tomes.
Paris: F. Dufart.
BROWNE, JANET. 1996. Charles Darwin,
volume 1, voyaging. Princeton (NJ): Princeton
University Press.
BRUNSON, WALTER C. 1914. The history of
Brown University: 1764-1914. Providence (RI):
Brown University.
CASH, PHILIP. 2006. Dr. Benjamin Waterhouse: a
life in medicine and public service (1754-1846).
Sagamore Beach (MA): Boston Medical Library
and Science History Publications.
CURTIS, WILLIAM. 1805. Lectures on botany, as
delivered in the botanic garden at Lambeth by
the late William Curtis, FLS. London: H. D.
Symonds.
CUTLER, MANASSEH. 1785. An account of some
of the vegetable productions, naturally growing
in this part of America, botanically arranged.
Memoirs of the American Academy of Arts and
Sciences 1: 396-493.
DARLINGTON, WILLIAM. 1849. Memorials of
John Bartram and Humphry Marshall; with
notices of their botanical contemporaries.
Philadelphia: Lindsay & Blakiston.
DUGATKIN, LEE ALAN. 2009. Mr. Jefferson
and the giant moose: natural history in early
America
. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
EATON, AMOS. 1810. The young botanist’s tablet of
memory. Catskill (NY): Nathan Elliot.
EATON, AMOS. 1817. A manual of botany for the
northern states: comprising generic descriptions
of all phanogamous and cryptogamous plants to
the north of Virginia, hitherto described: with
references to the natural orders of Linneus and
Jussieu: each genus is further illustrated by short
descriptions of its most common species. Albany
(NY): Websters and Skinners.
EATON, AMOS. 1818. Manual of botany for the
northern and middle states. Part I containing
generic descriptions of the plants to the north of
Virginia with reference to the natural orders of
Linnaeus and Jussieu. Part II containing specific
156
Plant Science Bulletin 57(4) 2011
descriptions of the indigenous plants, which are
well defined and established, and of the cultivated
exotics. 2nd ed. Albany (NY): Websters and
Skinners.
EATON, AMOS. 1820. Botanical exercises,
including directions, rules and descriptions
calculated to aid pupils in the analysis of plants:
with a labeling catalogue, for the assistance of
teachers. Albany (NY): Websters and Skinners.
EATON, AMOS. 1822. Manual of botany for
the northern and middle states of America:
containing generic and specific descriptions of the
indigenous plants and common cultivated exotics
growing north of Virginia. 3rd ed. Albany (NY):
Websters and Skinners.
EATON, AMOS. 1831. An address read before the
state school convention at Utica, New York,
January 12, 1831. In: The constitution and bylaws
of the school association of Rensselaer County,
N.Y. to which is added, an address, proposing a
plan of common school education, received and
approved by the State School Convention, held at
Utica, on the 12
th
of January, 1831. Troy (NY):
N. Tuttle Printer.
EATON, AMOS. 1836. Manual of botany for
North America: containing generic and specific
descriptions of the indigenous plants and
common cultivated exotics growing north of the
Gulf of Mexico. 7th ed. Albany (NY): Oliver
Steele.
EATON, AMOS, and JOHN WRIGHT. 1840.
North American botany: comprising the native
and common cultivated plants, north of Mexico:
genera arranged according to the artificial and
natural methods. Troy (NY): Elias Gates.
EWAN, JOSEPH. 1969. A short history of botany in
the United States. New York: Hafner Publishing
Company.
EWAN, JOSEPH, and NESTA DUNN EWAN.
2007. Benjamin Smith Barton: naturalist and
physician in Jeffersonian America. St. Louis
(MO): Missouri Botanical Garden Press.
FORD, CHARLES E. 1964. Botany texts: a survey
of their development in American higher
education, 1643-1906. History of Education
Quarterly 4: 59-71.
GOOD, H. G. 1941. Amos Eaton (1776-1842):
scientist and teacher of sciences. Scientific
Monthly 53: 464-469.
GREW, NEHEMIAH. 1965. The anatomy of plants
with an idea of a philosophical history of plants
and several other lectures read befor [sic] the
Royal Society. Reprint of 1682 ed. New York:
Johnson Reprint Corporation.
GRONIM, SARA STIDSTONE. 2007. What Jane
knew: a woman botanist in the eighteenth
century. Journal of Women’s History 19: 33-59.
HALES, STEPHEN. 1969. Vegetable staticks.
Reprint of 1727 ed. London: Macdonald & Co.
HARRISON, MARY. 1995. Jane Colden: colonial
American botanist. Arnoldia (summer): 19-26.
HOGE, ROBERT WILSON. 2007. A doctor for all
seasons: David Hosack of New York. American
Numismatic Magazine, Spring.
HOOKER, WILLIAM J. 1825. On the botany of
America. American Journal of Science 9: 263-
284.
HOSACK, DAVID. 1795. Syllabus of the course
of Lectures on Botany, delivered in Columbia
College, by David Hosack, M.D. New York: John
Childs.
HOSACK, DAVID. 1811a. Sketch of the Elgin
Botanic Garden, in the vicinity of the City
of New-York. The American Medical and
Philosophical Register 2: 1-4.
HOSACK, DAVID. 1811b. A statement of facts
relative to the establishment and progress of the
Elgin Botanic Garden. New York: C. S. Van
Winkle.
HOSACK, DAVID. 1814. Syllabus of the course
of Lectures on Botany, delivered in Columbia
College, by David Hosack, M.D. The American
Medical and Philosophical Register IV: 460-475.
HUGHES, WILLIAM. 1672. The American
physician, or a treatise of the roots, plants, trees,
shrubs, fruits, herbs, etc., growing in the English
plantations in America. In: A catalogue of old
and rare books: being a portion of stock and of
a collection of valuable old bindings with colored
and other facsimiles for sale with prices affixed. p.
181, item 1637. London: Pickering and Chatto,
1900.
HUMPHREY, JAMES ELLIS. 1896. Botany and
botanists in New England. The New England
Magazine 14: 27-44.
JACKSON, MARIA E. 1811. Sketches on the
physiology of vegetable life. London: John
Hatchard.
157
Plant Science Bulletin 57(4) 2011
JOHNSON, LAURA, under the supervision of
Amos Eaton. 1834. Botanical teacher for North
America in which are described the indigenous
and common exotic plants growing North of the
Gulf of Mexico. Albany (NY): Oliver Steele.
KASS, LEE B. 1997. Elizabeth Gertrude Knight
Britton (1858-1934). In: L. S. Grinstein, C.
A. Biermann, and R. K. Rose [eds.], Women
in the Biological Sciences—a biobibliographic
sourcebook. Westport (CT): Greenwood Press.
KEYS, ALICE MAPELSDON. 1906. Cadwallader
Colden: a representative eighteenth century
official. New York: The Columbia University
Press.
KOHLSTEDT, SALLY GREGORY. 1990. Parlors,
primers, and public schooling: education for
science in nineteenth-century America. Isis 81:
424-445.
KUHN, ADAM. 1768. Advertisement. In: The
Pennsylvania Gazette, 1728-1789, reprint ed.
1968. Volume 1767-1769, p. 315. Philadelphia:
Microsurance, Inc.
LINNAEUS, CARL. 1751. Philosophia Botanica.
Translated by Stephen Freer, 2003. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
LINNAEUS, CARL. 1753. Species Plantarum,
Exhibentes Plantas Rites Cognitas ad Genera
Relatas, cum Differentiis Specificis, Nominibus
Trivialibus, Synonimis Selectis, Locis Natalibus,
Secundum, Systema Sexulae Digestas. Tomus I.
Stockholm: Laurentii Salvii.
LOCKE, JOHN. 1819. Outlines of botany, taken
chiefly from Smith’s introduction; containing an
explanation of botanical terms and an illustration
of the system of Linnaeus also some account of
natural orders, and the anatomy and physiology
of vegetables. Boston: Cummings and Hilliard.
MALPIGHI, MARCELLO. 1901. Die Anatomie der
Pflanzen. I und II Theil. London 1675 und 1679.
Translated by M. Möbius. Leipzig: Verlag von
Wilhelm Engelmann.
MARSHALL, HUMPFRY. 1785. Arbustrum
Americanum: the American grove, or an
alphabetical catalog of the forest trees and shrubs
natives of the American United States, arranged
according to the Linnaean system. Philadelphia:
Joseph Cruckshank.
MCALLISTER, ETHEL M. 1941. Amos Eaton:
scientist and educator, 1776-1842. Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania.
MIDDLETON, WILLIAM S. 1936. Benjamin
Smith Barton. Annals of Medical History new
ser. 8: 477-491.
MITCHELL, MARTHA. 1993. Encyclopedia
Brunoniana. Providence (RI): Brown University
Library.
MONROE, PAUL [ed.]. 1911. Botany, p. 425-433.
In: A Cyclopedia of Education, Volume 1. New
York: The Macmillan Company.
NASON, H. B. [ed.]. 1887. Biographical record
of the officers and graduates of the Rensselaer
Polytechnic Institute, 1824-1886. Troy (NY):
William H. Young.
NUTTALL, THOMAS. 1827. An introduction to
systematic and physiological botany. Cambridge:
Hilliard and Brown.
PHELPS, ALMIRA H. LINCOLN. 1853. Familiar
lectures on botany, explaining the structure,
classification, and uses of plants, illustrated
upon the Linnaean and natural methods with
a flora for practical botanists. New York: F. J.
Huntington and Mason and Law.
REZNECK, SAMUEL. 1971. Amos Eaton. In:
Charles Coulston Gillispie [ed.], Dictionary of
scientific biography, Vol. IV. New York: Charles
Scribner’s Sons.
RICKETT, H. W., and ELIZABETH C. HALL
[eds.]. 1963. Botanic manuscript of Jane Colden,
1724-1766. New York: Chanticleer Press.
ROBBINS, CHRISTINE CHAPMAN. 1960.
David Hosack’s Herbarium and its Linnaean
specimens. Proceedings of the American
Philosophical Society 104: 293-313.
ROBBINS, CHRISTINE CHAPMAN. 1964. David
Hosack; citizen of New York. Philadelphia: The
American Philosophical Society.
ROSE, HUGH. 1775. The elements of botany:
containing the history of the science: with accurate
definitions of all the terms of art, exemplified in
eleven copper plates; the theory of vegetables; the
scientific arrangement of plants, the names used
in botany; rules concerning the general history,
virtues, and uses of plants. Being a translation of
the Philosophia Botanica, and other treatises of
the celebrated Linnaeus. London: T. Cadell and
M. Hingeston.
ROSSITER, MARGARET W. 1982. Women
scientists in America: struggles and strategies to
1940. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
158
Plant Science Bulletin 57(4) 2011
ROUSSEAU, JEAN-JACQUES. 1787. Letters on
the Elements of Botany addressed to a lady. 2nd
ed. Translated by Thomas Martyn. London: B.
White and Son.
RUDOLPH, EMANUEL. 1996. History of the
botanical teaching laboratory in the United
States. American Journal of Botany 83: 661-671.
RUDOLPH, FREDERICK. 1977. Curriculum: a
history of the American undergraduate course of
study since 1636. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
SCHIEBINGER, LONDA, and CLAUDIA SWAN
[eds.]. 2005. Colonial botany: science, commerce,
and politics in the early modern world.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
SLAUGHTER, THOMAS P. 1996. The natures of
John and William Bartram. New York: Alfred
A. Knopf.
SMITH, BEATRICE SCHEER. 1988. Jane Colden
(1724-1766) and her botanic manuscript.
American Journal of Botany 75: 1090-1096.
SMITH, JAMES EDWARD. 1809. An introduction
to physiological and systematical botany. 2nd ed.
London: Longman, Hurst, Rees, and Orme.
SMITH, JAMES EDWARD. 1814. An introduction
to physiological and systematical botany, 1st
American from the 2nd English edition with
notes by Jacob Bigelow, M.D. Philadelphia:
Anthony Finley.
SMITH, SIR JAMES EDWARD. 1821. A selection
of the correspondence of Linnaeus, and other
naturalists, from the original manuscripts.
London: Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orme, and Brown.
SMOCOVITIS, V. B. 2006. One hundred years
of American botany: a short history of the
Botanical Society of America. American Journal
of Botany 93: 942-952.
SPRENGEL, CHRISTIAN KONRAD. 1793. Das
entdeckte Geheimnis der Natur im Bau und in
der Befruchtung der Blumen
. Berlin: Friendrech
Vieweg dem aeltern.
STUCKEY, RONALD L., and WILLIAM R. BURK.
2000. Emanuel D. Rudolph’s studies in the history
of North American botany. Fort Worth (TX):
Botanical Research Institute of Texas.
SUMNER, GEORGE. 1820. A compendium of
physiological and systematic botany. Hartford
(CT): Oliver Cook.
SUNDBERG, MARSHALL D. 2005. Linnaeus’
Philosophia Botanica. Plant Science Bulletin 51:
104-105.
TREVIRANUS, LUDOLPH CHRISTIAN. 1806.
Vom inwendigen Bau der Gewächse. Göttingen
(Germany): Heinrich Dieterich.
VON SACHS, JULIUS. 1906. History of botany
(1530-1860). Translated by Henry E. F. Garnsey,
revised by Isaac Bayley Balfour. Oxford:
Clarendon Press.
WAKEFIELD, PRICILLA. 1807. An introduction
to botany in a series of familiar letters with
illustrated engravings. 5th ed. London: Darton
and Harvey.
WATERHOUSE, BENJAMIN. 1804a. Heads of
a course of lectures on natural history, given
annually (since 1788) in the University at
Cambridge, by B. Waterhouse, M.D. professor
of the theory and practice of physic, and lecturer
in natural history. The Monthly Anthology and
Boston Review 1: 308-312.
WATERHOUSE, BENJAMIN. 1804b. The botanist.
I-V. The Monthly Anthology and Boston Review
1: 391-403, 445-447, 492-496, 579-584, 642-
646.
WATERHOUSE, BENJAMIN. 1805. The botanist.
VI-XII. The Monthly Anthology and Boston
Review 2: 9-13, 75-78, 124-128, 228-233, 346-
352, 447-450, 503-508.
WATERHOUSE, BENJAMIN. 1807. The botanist.
XIII. The Monthly Anthology and Boston Review
4: 401-407.
WATERHOUSE, BENJAMIN. 1808. The botanist.
XIV, XV. The Monthly Anthology and Boston
Review 5: 177-183, 289-292.
WATERHOUSE, BENJAMIN. 1811. The botanist,
being the botanical part of a course of lectures
on natural history delivered in the university
at Cambridge together with a discourse on
the principle of vitality. Boston: Joseph T.
Buckingham.
WELCH, JANE. 1819. A botanical catechism:
containing introductory lessons for students in
botany.... By a lady. Northampton (MA): T. W.
Shepard and Co.
159
Personalia
NTBG to Honor Scientist Who “wrote the book”
Renowned botanist and author recognized for his contributions
Kalāheo, Kaua‘i, HI USA (August 25, 2011) —
The National Tropical Botanical Garden (NTBG)
announced today that it will bestow one of its
highest scientific honors to a British-Australian
botanist, historian, educator, and author. Dr. David
J. Mabberley has been named the 2011 recipient
of the Robert Allerton Award for Excellence in
Tropical Botany or Horticulture. A medal will
be presented to Mabberley on September 18 in
San Francisco during NTBG’s Board of Trustees
meetings.
The Allerton Award recognizes specific
achievements or a lifetime of achievements in
tropical plant science. “Professor Mabberley has
made enormous contributions to science and
education, and has reached plant lovers who wish
to explore and better understand their world,” said
Chipper Wichman, NTBG’s Director and CEO.
“Through his published works and extraordinarily
active career he has enriched the lives of countless
people in so many countries, all the while protecting
plant life far and wide.”
Mabberley literally “wrote the book” on plants. His
internationally acclaimed Mabberley’s Plant-Book: A
portable dictionary of plants, their classification and
uses is considered an indispensable reference guide
to more than 24,000 entries. The book is widely
popular with scientific and non-scientific readers.
Well-known botanist and conservationist Dr. Peter
Raven has said that he could think of no more
useful reference in the whole field of botany. As an
author, Prof. Mabberley’s works are not restricted
to academia and scientific communities, but often
target general readers, an approach that reflects his
recognition of the important role the public plays in
effecting change in behavior and policy.
Over the course of his career, Mabberley has
discovered, described, or named more than 200 taxa
of plants. During this time, he has lectured around
the world on taxonomic theory, biogeography,
ecology, botanical art, plant history, plant disease,
agriculture, forestry, the role of botanic gardens in
society, and various other aspects of biology and
Professor David Mabberley examines a fruit of Citrus medica. Credit: Andrew McRobb. Photo
©
Director and Trustees of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew.
160
Plant Science Bulletin 57(4) 2011
horticulture. The professor has written extensively
on plant-related topics within scientific and
environmental fields for both popular and peer-
reviewed journals as well as print, web, television,
and radio media.
The Robert Allerton Award is named after one
of NTBG’s founding trustees and its principal
initial benefactor, and consists of a bronze medal
and honorarium. Prof. Mabberley will be the 20th
recipient, joining the ranks of other esteemed
scientists, such as Sir Ghillean Prance and Dr.
Alwyn Gentry.
Prof. Mabberley, upon hearing he had been
selected to receive the Allerton Award, responded,
“having visited NTBG and seen the great Allerton
legacy, I am thrilled to be honored in this way,
doubly so because the inspiration for my whole
career in tropical botany was Prof. E.J.H. Corner,
my doctoral advisor, who himself received the
award in 1981.”
“We are pleased to pay tribute to a botanist as
accomplished and respected as Prof. Mabberley,”
Wichman remarked. “His Plant-Book in itself
merits special recognition. Looking at his body of
work as a whole, there is no one more deserving of
this distinction.”
The National Tropical Botanical Garden is a not-
for-profit, non-governmental institution with nearly
2,000 acres of gardens and preserves in Hawai‘i
and Florida. Its mission is to enrich life through
discovery, scientific research, conservation, and
education by perpetuating the survival of plants,
ecosystems, and cultural knowledge of tropical
regions. NTBG is supported primarily through
donations and grants.
Additional Background
Information on Prof. Mabberley
Current Position: Executive Director, New South
Wales Royal Botanic Gardens Trust
Born in Gloucestershire, England, David J.
Mabberley was educated at colleges in Cirencester,
Oxford, and Cambridge. He completed a
studentship program at Royal Botanic Gardens,
Kew, before embarking on a career that is
remarkable for its breadth and depth. In addition
to specializing in tropical plant ecology, economic
botany, and botanical history, Prof. Mabberley has
conducted four decades worth of research and
field work in Europe, Asia, Africa, Oceania, North,
South, and Central America, and the Middle East,
with extensive work in East Africa and Madagascar.
To date, Prof. Mabberley has written 16 books
and over 280 scientific papers and popular articles.
Well-known reference books include works related
to historical and modern botanical art and history,
tropical ecology, and systematics. Prof. Mabberley’s
books include Tropical Rainforest Ecology, The Story
of the Apple, Paradisus: Hawaiian Plant Watercolors
with Geraldine King Tam, and Arthur Harry
Church: The Anatomy of Flowers.
As an educator Prof. Mabberley has devised
courses, programs, and associated learning
materials for scientific bodies, primary school
children, undergraduate and postgraduate
university students, gardening and tree clubs,
and other groups as diverse as the International
Botanical Congress and members of the United
States military stationed in Britain. While at
Wadham College, Oxford, Prof. Mabberley
served both as Dean and Senior Proctor while
simultaneously holding academic posts and serving
as a member of various committees and boards
related to garden and university management, plant
sciences, plant conservation, publishing, natural
history museums, and fine arts.
Prof. Mabberley’s academic and professional
background is far-reaching, covering a vast range
of plant-related topics, but he has given special
attention to researching the systematics of the
economically important plant families Rutaceae
(citrus), Meliaceae (mahogany), Vitaceae (grape),
and Labiatae (teak).
In addition to holding prestigious positions
at Oxford University; the University of Leiden,
The Netherlands; and the University of Western
Sydney, Australia, over Prof. Mabberley’s 35-plus-
year professional career, he has served in more
than two dozen positions including: tutor, lecturer,
research fellow, faculty board member, department
head, director, dean, curator, president, chairman,
judge, external examiner, senior proctor, and chief
executive officer of the not-for-profit organization
Greening Australia (NSW) Inc.
From 2004 to 2008, the professor served as
Director of the University of Washington Botanic
Gardens before returning to Royal Botanic Gardens,
Kew, as Keeper (Director) of the Herbarium,
Library, Art, and Archives. For three years (2008-
2011), Prof. Mabberley was responsible for the
161
Plant Science Bulletin 57(4) 2011
world’s largest herbarium and fungarium, largest plant-science library, Kew’s Economic Botany Collection
with more than 200,000 pieces of botanical art, and two art galleries.
In August 2011 Prof. Mabberley departed Kew for Australia, where he has held dual British-Australian
citizenship since 1999, to serve as Executive Director of the New South Wales Royal Botanic Gardens Trust,
which comprises the Royal Botanic Garden and Domain (Sydney), the Australian Botanic Garden (Mt.
Annan), the Blue Mountains Botanic Garden (Mt. Tomah), and the National Herbarium of New South
Wales.
“Next-Gen Sequencing” Special Issue
Slated for
AJB in 2012
“Methods and Applications of Next-Generation
Sequencing in Botany” is the theme of a special issue in
the American Journal of Botany. The issue, led by special
editors David Spooner, Ashley Egan, and Jessica Schlueter,
will focus on the application of new genomics technologies
in botanical sciences. The AJB has already featured several of
the articles at its website (www.amjbot.org), including:
•“Genomics of Compositae weeds: EST libraries,
microarrays, and evidence of introgression” by Zhao Lai,
Nolan C. Kane, Alex Kozik, Kathryn A. Hodgins, Katrina
M. Dlugosch, Michael S. Barker, Marta Matvienko, Qian
Yu, Kathryn G. Turner, Stephanie Anne Pearl, Graeme D.
M. Bell, Yi Zou, Chris Grassa, Alessia Guggisberg, Keith L.
Adams, James V. Anderson, David P. Horvath, Richard V.
Kesseli, John M. Burke, Richard W. Michelmore, and Loren
H. Rieseberg
•“Navigating the tip of the genomic iceberg: Next-generation sequencing for plant systematics” by
Shannon C. K. Straub, Matthew Parks, Kevin Weitemier, Mark Fishbein, Richard C. Cronn, and Aaron
Liston
•“Using next-generation sequencing approaches to isolate simple sequence repeat (SSR) loci in the
plant sciences” by Juan E. Zalapa, Hugo Cuevas, Huayu Zhu, Shawn Steffan, Douglas Senalik, Eric Zeldin,
Brent McCown, Rebecca Harbut, and Philipp Simon
Be sure to follow these articles—and all AJB Advance Access articles—by signing up for RSS feeds at
http://www.amjbot.org/rss/, and follow AJB on the BSA’s Facebook page and Twitter feed.
162
Book Reviews
Books Reviewed
Developmental and Structural
Flower and Fruit: Morphology, Ontogeny, Phylogeny, Function & Ecology .......... 162
Ecological
Pollination and Floral Ecology ................................................................................. 163
Education
Life of Earth: Portrait of a Beautiful, Middle-Aged, Stressed-Out World ............... 165
Historical
Botany and History Entwined: Rachel Hunt’s Legacy ............................................. 167
Marianne North: A Very Intrepid Painter .................................................................168
The Smallest Kingdom: Plants and Plant Collectors at the Cape of Good Hope .....169
Mycological
The Book of Fungi: a Life-size Guide to Six Hundred Species ................................169
Paleobotanical
Plants in Mesozoic Time .......................................................................................... 171
Systematics
Aloes: The Definitive Guide .....................................................................................172
A Field Guide to the Ferns and Lycophytes of Louisiana ........................................ 172
Wildflowers and Plant Communities of the Southern Appalachian
Mountains and Piedmont: A Naturalist’s Guide to the Carolinas,
Virginia, Tennessee, and Georgia ....................................................................... 173
Wetland Plants of the Adirondacks: Book 1: Ferns, Woody Plants and
Graminoids and Book 2: Herbaceous Plants and Aquatic Plants. ..................... 175
Developmental and Structural
Flower and Fruit: Morphology, On-
togeny, Phylogeny, Function and
Ecology
Leins, P. and C. Erbar
2010. (Cloth $99) 439 pp.
Schweizerbart Science Publishers.
ISBN 978-3-510-65261-7
[http://www.schweizerbart.de/publications/
detail/artno/181201001]
Flower and Fruit is a translated and slightly
updated version of Leins and Erbar’s (2008) Blüte
und Frucht, which is itself a revised edition of Leins’
(2000) text of the same name. As such, and because
it appeared in 2010, there have already been a
number of reviews of this edition (Anonymous,
2011; Frey, 2011; Schmid, 2011; Vrijdaghs, 2011).
The text of these reviews can be found on the
publisher website (http://www.schweizerbart.de/
publications/detail/artno/181201001). All of these
are strongly positive, as they should be. While not
wishing to cast aspersions on the quality of the book,
it falls to me, the Johnny-come-lately reviewer,
to point out some of its shortcomings. I do this
only in the hope that future authors can consider
these points as they prepare their texts. Flower and
Fruit is a wonderful book, one that summarizes
and consolidates a large body of mostly European
literature, and one that is well worth having on your
shelf. As Frey (2011) notes, there is no comparable
book in the botanical oeuvre.
My main problem with the book concerns its
coverage, or more precisely, its lack of thorough
coverage. When I say that the book mainly
summarizes the European literature, I am perhaps
being too generous. Vrijdags (2011) links it solely
to the “German morphological school,” which may
be a fairer assessment, though still may be a bit
generous. It is certain that none of Vrijdaghs’ papers
are cited, nor are those of his mentor, Smets. This
lack cuts off two of the major authors in Belgium.
Rudall receives one citation, and Tucker four.
163
Plant Science Bulletin 57(4) 2011
That eliminates the two most prolific English and
American authors in these areas. Of our Canadian
colleagues, Posluszny is not cited, and Sattler is
cited four times, but nothing of his is mentioned
after 1978. So who is cited? What exactly is the
coverage of this book? Reading between the lines,
and looking closely at the “selected” references,
reveals that it is primarily a summary of the work
of Leins and Erbar. Leins is cited 47 times, and
Erbar 37 times, as first author. This is wonderful
work and well worth the treatment it receives here,
but it is not the only work that has been done in
these areas, nor should it be taken as the definitive
view on these subjects. My difficulty is not that
the authors have presented their own work. No
one is better equipped to do this then they are. My
problem is that they do not make their presentation
bias explicit. They present much of the data as if it
were all that there was know of these subjects, with
only brief (or no) mention of taxa on which they
have not worked.
Here is a specific example. On p. 82, in the
chapter on the gynoecium, the authors say, “The
carpels arise from the floral apex as hemispherical
to transverse-oval primordial (Figs. 15, 79a). The
proceeding development is essentially determined
by two processes, namely placation and peltation.”
This statement only applies to superior ovaries
with apocarpous gynoecia (the choricarpy of the
authors), yet it is presented as if it had universal
validity. Looking back a few pages, we find this
error perpetuated from the beginning of the
chapter. At the beginning of the chapter the carpel
is compared to an “obliquely cut tube.” That is,
apocarpous gynoecia are presented as if they were
the only type of gynoecia. The illustrations support
this definition. At the beginning of the chapter,
they are all of apocarpous gynoecia. To be fair, the
authors do turn to syncarpous (but not inferior)
gynoecia (their coenocarpy) after six pages on
apocarpy, but by then the equivalence of apocarpy
with all “true(?)” carpels is set in the reader’s mind.
What can we expect a student to learn from this
type of presentation? That all carpels are tube-like?
That conation among carpels is rare? That there has
been little work on taxa with inferior ovaries? This
is an important question for a book that is clearly
written with students in mind. As other reviewers
have noted, the language is kept as simple as
possible throughout the book, and the explanations
(and especially the diagrams) are clearly presented
(Schmid, 2011; Vrijdaghs, 2011). Terms are often
defined in the text, and Greek and Latin roots
are sometimes even parenthetically given. It is
precisely this clarity of presentation that makes
the author’s lack of clarity on their bias surprising.
Such a wonderful book should not be marred
by consistent oversights in presentation. Floral
form and function in the covered taxa is certainly
interesting and important, but this information is
best presented for what it is, not when it is used to
represent all current knowledge about flowers and
fruit.
Literature Cited
ANONYMOUS. 2011. Flower and fruit: Morphology,
ontogeny, phylogeny, function and ecology.
Frontiers of Biogeography 2: 102.
FREY, W. 2011. Leins, P & C. Erbar: Flower and
fruit. Morphology, ontogeny, phylogeny, function
and ecology. Nova Hedwigia 92: 561-562.
LEINS, P. 2000. Blüte und Frucht. Schweizerbart
Science Publishers, Stuttgart.
LEINS, P., and C. ERBAR. 2008. Blüte und Frucht:
Aspekte der Morphologie, Entwicklungsgeschichte,
Phylogenie, Funktion und Ökologie. Schweizerbart
Science Publishers, Stuttgart, Germany.
SCHMID, R. 2011. The new, new Payer, but also the
new Eames-Weberling-etc. Taxon 60: 935-936.
VRIJDAGHS, A. 2011. Book Review: Peter
Leins, Claudia Erbar (2010) Flower and fruit:
Morphology, ontogeny, phylogeny, function
and ecology. Plant Ecology and Evolution 144: 119.
-Bruce Kirchoff, Department of Biology, University
of North Carolina at Greensboro, Greensboro, NC
27402; Kirchoff@uncg.edu
Ecological
Pollination and Floral Ecology
Willmer, Pat.
2011.
ISBN 978-0-691-12861-0 (Cloth US$95.00)
828 pp.
Princeton University Press, 41 William Street,
Princeton, New Jersey 08540-5237.
The theme of specialization and generalization
is commonplace in plant-animal interactions
and, indeed, the field of ecology (Graham and
164
Plant Science Bulletin 57(4) 2011
Dayton, 2002). Pollination and Floral Ecology by
Pat Willmer, professor of zoology at the University
of St. Andrews, conforms to a more general work,
examining the ecology and evolution of the form
and function of flowers and their interactions with
pollinators.
Voluminous treatments of floral and pollination
ecology and evolution date back to Sprengel (1793)
and Darwin (1841), and still regularly appear, but
have been more specialized (e.g., Jones and Little,
1983; Waser and Ollerton, 2006). Notwithstanding
other works and our gain in knowledge, a general,
thorough book on pollination and floral ecology
has not emerged in nearly three decades (Faegri
and van der Pijl, 1979). Willmer sought to and
successfully captured the advances in the field
of the past 30 years in a single, general reference
that will surely be a companion of any pollination
ecologist in the foreseeable future.
Pollination and Floral Ecology contains over 600
pages of text that are broken into four main parts:
“Essentials of Flower Design and Function,” “Floral
Advertisements and Floral Rewards,” “Pollination
Syndromes?,” and “Floral Ecology.” The first part,
Essentials of Flower Design and Function, covers
all the basics one needs to dive into the rest of
the book, including floral design and function
(Chapter 2); pollination, mating, and reproduction
in plants (Chapter 3); and evolution of flowers,
pollination, and plant diversity (Chapter 4). Much
of the latter chapters were very readable and the
figures were simple, clear, and drawn in the context
of the text, which prevents distracting figures laden
with labels. The evolution chapter was a bit abrupt,
considering the role of evolution in co-shaping
flowers and pollinators. Implicitly, coadaptation
and cospeciation were discussed, but an explicit
chapter on this material would aid the evolutionary
and coevolutionary message of the book.
The second part, Floral Advertisements and
Floral Rewards (Chapters 5–10), deals with
advertisements, rewards, and the economics of
pollination. The advertisement chapters discuss
how plants have exploited animal pollinators’
sensory modalities to attract them for their
pollination services through complex suites of
visual signals (e.g., color, structure) and olfaction.
Willmer highlights and exhibits the complexity
of detecting and measuring attractants, which
may be one of the axes of differentiation that
researchers have yet to fully incorporate into their
treatments of pollination syndromes. The rewards
and economics of pollination were physiologically
based and seemed short on detail. However, later
in the book (floral ecology part), the economics of
pollination was more greatly expanded upon.
Throughout the book, but more specifically in
the third part, Pollination Syndromes?, Willmer
admittedly takes a more classic approach to plant-
pollinator interactions by showcasing pollination
syndromes. Ten of the 29 chapters of the book
explicitly regard pollination syndromes, seven of
which describe in detail syndrome classes (flies,
butterflies and moths, birds, bats, bees, water and
wind, and oddities). Willmer invokes van der Pijl
(1961) to discuss syndromes as “classes with bad
boundaries but a clear center.” This view has fallen
out of favor in the past decade (e.g., Ollerton and
Watts, 2000) but the arguments are given a fair
and thorough discussion based on theoretical and
empirical grounds (Chapter 20: Syndromes and
webs: Specialists and generalists). The ultimate
argument Willmer makes, however, is that the
baby should not be thrown out with the bathwater
because, although not all flowers conform to
distinct, specialized syndromes, a syndrome-based
approach can still be informative. The question is,
then, how?
Lastly, the fourth part of the book is on floral
ecology. Herein, the end of the book reads like
most ecology texts, as many of them draw from the
interactions of plants and pollinators because of
their elegance and simplicity. Many of the aspects
could be used in applied fields given the predictions
of climate change affecting flowering timing and
patterns (Chapter 21), pollinator populations,
and the interactions of the two (Yang and Rudolf,
2010). Further, justice was done to the idea that
interactions evolve to become less negative and how
the evolution of pollination presumably shifts from
parasitism to mutualism (e.g., Chapter 26). One
chapter discusses community-level interactions
(Chapter 22: Living with other flowers: Competition
and pollination ecology), but it primarily focuses on
the antagonistic effects of competition and excludes
the importance of positive effects (facilitation),
which could potentially increase the pollination
service to the community by living with other
flowers (e.g., Bruno, Stachowicz, and Bertness,
2003; Bronstein, 2009).
Willmer covers basic principles taught
in undergraduate education, such as flower
morphology and plant reproduction, to newer and
more advanced ideas and tools such as network
165
Plant Science Bulletin 57(4) 2011
analysis. The concision of Willmer’s writing suits
the demographic that the book was aimed at:
advanced undergraduates to professionals. The
readability will assist the former—beginners
entering plant-pollinator research—and bring the
latter researchers unfamiliar with the literature up
to date. Further, the ultimate two chapters (Chapter
28: The pollination of crops; Chapter 29: The global
pollination crisis) are likely to be of use to land
managers and decision makers because economies
and ecology need effective pollination for crops.
There is seemingly very little missing from this
book. Nearly every page has a redrawn figure
or table that aids the understanding of the text.
Further, there are 40 pages of color plates (more
than 300 photos) that exemplify the astounding
diversity of flower morphologies and types. To see
the array of diversity of flower forms in a single text
brought out profound curiosity and the fantasy of
rising from my chair and immediate go outside to
study plant-pollinator interactions! Further, no
part of the world seems to be left out, nor was there
noticeable taxonomic over-representation.
In sum, the book should largely be used as a
reference book, which, again, can be used by those
with any level of experience. It is inexpensive relative
to the amount of material covered. I commend
Willmer for the presumably massive undertaking of
the compiling of this vast subject into this relatively
small volume. Like other reference books, the
material will not become obsolete for many years,
and it should be the companion of any pollination
ecologist entering the field.
Literature Cited
BRONSTEIN, J. L. 2009. The evolution of
facilitation and mutualism. Journal of Ecology
97: 1160-1170.
BRUNO, J. F., J. J. STACHOWICZ, and M. D.
BERTNESS. 2003. Inclusion of facilitation into
ecological theory. Trends in Ecology & Evolution
18: 119-125.
DARWIN, C. R. 1841. Humble-bees. Gardeners’
Chronicle 34: 550.
FAEGRI, K., and L. VAN DER PIJL. 1979. The
principles of pollination ecology. Oxford:
Pergamon.
GRAHAM, M. H., and P. K. DAYTON. 2002. On
the evolution of ecological ideas: Paradigms
and scientific progress. Ecology 83: 1481–1489.
JONES, C. E., and R. J. LITTLE. 1983. Handbook of
experimental pollination biology. Van Nostrand
Reinhold, New York.
OLLERTON, J., and S. WATTS. 2000. Phenotypic
space and floral typology: Towards an objective
assessment of pollination syndromes. Norske
Vidensk.-Akad. 1. Mat. Naturvid. Kl. Skrif. Ny.
Ser. 39: 149-159.
SPRENGEL, C. K. 1793. Das entdeckte Geheimnis
der Natur im Bau und in der Befruchtung der
Blumen. Berlin: Friedrich Vieweg.
VAN DER PIJL, L. 1961. Ecological aspects of
flower evolution. II. Evolution 15: 44-59.
WASER, N. M., and J. OLLERTON. 2006. Plant-
pollinator interactions: From specialization to
generalization. University of Chicago Press,
Chicago.
YANG, L. H., and V. H. W. RUDOLF. 2010.
Phenology, ontogeny and the effects of climate
change on the timing of species interactions.
Ecology Letters 13: 1-10.
-Christopher Moore, Program in Ecology, Evolution,
and Conservation Biology, University of Nevada,
Reno 89557.
Education
Life of Earth: Portrait of a Beautiful,
Middle-Aged, Stressed-Out World
Rice, Stanley A.
2009
ISBN 978-1-889878-26-3 (hardback $20.00
US) 255 pages
Prometheus Books, Amherst, New York, USA.
Evolution is an ongoing process. It occurs right
before our eyes and is critical to understanding
many aspects of population and community
ecology. Evolution is not static or straightforward
but is complex and unpredictable, making it
challenging to teach and comprehend. Life of Earth:
Portrait of a Beautiful, Middle-Aged Stressed-Out
World by Stanley A. Rice offers an evolutionary
history of our planet earth (which he calls Gaia).
He uses many modern metaphors and examples to
convey evolutionary developments, and addresses
how humans are pivotal in determining the future
166
Plant Science Bulletin 57(4) 2011
life of our planet. Throughout the text he raises
questions, defines terms such as fitness, sexual
selection, superorganism, and describes the
evidence of major extinctions in life history.
Life of Earth is not written as a technical
text. Instead it is written for nonscientists
or undergraduate science students, although
professors who teach general biology, historical
geology, and evolution and systematic courses
could implement many concepts that are presented
throughout the book. I particularly bracketed and
highlighted portions of many pages throughout the
first six chapters to use as instructional material in
teaching my freshman course “Biology and Human
Concerns.” The book contains an introduction,
nine chapters, a section titled “Notes” that provides
references cited in each chapter, a bibliography,
and an index. Dr. Rice enlivens his account with
references to writers such as Mark Twain, Ernest
Hemingway, and Kurt Vonnegut, public figures
such as Mahatma Gandhi and Mother Teresa, as well
as Charles Darwin and E. O. Wilson. Additionally,
he defines and explains many terms and scientific
concepts including exponential growth, inclusive
fitness, neoteny, and natural selection. Most of the
book is intriguing, and excellent transitions occur
from one section to the next.
Dr. Rice tends not to discuss evolutionary
chronological phenomena in sequence. Throughout
the book, especially chapters three through six,
most of the attention is given to pivotal evolutionary
developments that have enhanced Earth’s
biodiversity: sexual selection, altruism, symbiosis,
the role of photosynthesis, as well as evolutionary
innovations. Chapter three, for example, focuses
on innovations that occurred through geological
history and the new opportunities that arose for
species that acquired these novel traits. Topics
included single-celled organisms, Edicarean
organisms, origin of vertebrates, advent of flight,
advantages of homeothermy, amniotic eggs, the
plant vascular system, and pollen. He further
describes the origin of bipedalism in hominins, and
the development of stone tools and the use of fire.
Chapter four addresses symbiosis. Rice begins
the chapter with symbiotic mergers that enabled
the complex history of life: how photosynthesis
arose, how complex eukaryotic cells originated,
and how big multicellular organisms appeared
and proliferated. The second half of the chapter
shows how symbiosis was essential to the spread
of terrestrial life. Rice describes several examples:
mycorrhizae and plant roots, intestinal bacterial
flora in the guts of animals (including humans)
that help them digest plant forage, and the role of
animals in both pollen and seed dispersal.
The fifth chapter addresses sex. Dr. Rice notes
how much easier life would be without sex, and
that asexual organisms produce more offspring.
However, he counters that sex is an importance
evolutionary innovation that enhances genetic
diversity, competition, and has filled the world with
drama and violence. Most of the chapter pertains
to aspects of sexual selection as noted by subtitles
such as “Why Males Fight,” “Female Choice,”
“Exuberant Beauty,” and “Sexual Selection and
Cultural Extensions.” I particularly enjoyed the
short three-page section entitled “A Sexual History
of Plant Life” describing the phenology of male and
female cottonwood trees in light of relative risks
such as frost, bud burst, etc.
Chapter six addresses all facets of altruism: bees
and kin selection, reciprocity and intelligence,
reciprocity and empathy, direct and indirect
reciprocity, altruism in recent history, unselfish
altruism, and reciprocity and trust. Particularly
intriguing to me were examples of altruism in
plants, for example, that plants grow better when
close genetic relatives are nearby. More dubious
is his claim that human altruism has been dying
for the past five thousand years and has been
suppressed in public and private sectors. For
example, he contends that “corporations benefit
by having people buy things to gratify themselves,
not by having people help one another” (p. 160).
He adds that when large global corporations and
political parties are in control, then evolutionary
benefits of altruism are lost. In the final paragraph
of this chapter, he states that the collapse of the
human economy could rival the disruption of
the Earth greater than the asteroid impact that
occurred at the end of the Cretaceous.
Chapters seven and eight are where I part
company with the author. He indulges in
questionable comments that are likely to alienate
members of faith communities and individuals
with political beliefs that differ from his own. For
example, Dr. Rice states that religion is a set of
powerful memes that have conquered the human
mind, are used as a vehicle of propagation, and
are used to manipulate other people and groups.
Statements of opinion such as “Christianity is
the Western religion that has created the most
environmental destruction” (p. 180), “there are
many scientists who are conservative Christians,
but not very many outstanding ones” (p. 188), and
“religious groups can brainwash their children to
167
Plant Science Bulletin 57(4) 2011
Rachel McMasters Miller Hunt (1882-1963) was
born to wealth, this book makes clear, though
the authors are much too discreet to mention any
numbers. In June of 1913, she married Roy Arthur
Hunt (1881-1966). His father was one of the
founders of Aluminum Company of America, now
officially Alcoa; Roy Hunt served his 63-year career
with the company.
The present volume chronicles the interest of
Rachel Hunt in botany, book collecting, and book
binding. This culminated in the establishment of
the Hunt Library (1961) on the campus of what is
today Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh.
The exterior of the five-story building is largely
glass and (not surprisingly) aluminum. The Hunt
Institute occupies the fifth floor.
Much of the focus of the catalogue is on the visually
impressive works of many of the great botanical
illustrators of the 19th century. But there is also
a charming portrait of the four sons of the Hunt
marriage, none of them yet teenagers (p. 13), which
the reader might care to compare with the group
photograph from 1961, p. 79.
Because the book is meant to be an accompaniment
to an exhibition, there is but passing mention of the
scholarship for which the Hunt Institute is so famed.
One of the great strengths of the collection is the
Strandell Collection of Linnaeana, pp. 92-93. The
authors modestly make mention of information on
the collection in Taxon for 1976. A fuller citation
of the nine papers is merited: Taxon 25(1): 3-74.
February 1976. The ninth of the papers is by
George H. M. Lawrence, who retired from being
director of the Hunt Institute in 1970. His paper is
on the preparation of “A Catalogue of Linnaeana,”
which regrettably was never published.
Understandably, this book (meant for the general
public) makes no mention of such works as Kiger,
Tancin, and Bridson. 1999. Index to Scientific
Names of Organisms Cited in the Linnaean
Dissertations together with a Synoptic Bibliography
of the Dissertations and a Concordance for
Selected Editions. v + 300 pp. Botanico-Periodicum
Huntianum, 1968, its Supplementum, 1991, and
BPH-2, 2004, indispensable to plant taxonomists,
are exemplars of the Institute’s scholarly work, and
they are given brief mention, pp. 88 and 89, along
with the Institute’s journal, Huntia.
It is altogether fitting that the Hunt Institute for
Botanical Documentation should have as its home
Carnegie Mellon University, philanthropy at its best.
– Neil A. Harriman, Biology Department, Univer-
sity of Wisconsin-Oshkosh, Oshkosh, Wisconsin
54901, harriman@uwosh.edu
automatically reject anything that does not conform
to their church doctrines” (p. 191) would be
extremely unsettling to many students whom I teach
in the sciences. Such comments serve to reinforce
the belief among many deeply religious people that
secular scientists hold them in contempt, and do
not belong in an introductory biology text. There
are many examples of individuals who are both
deeply religious and excellent scientists: geneticist
Francis S. Collins, director of the National Institutes
of Health, and evolutionary biologist Kenneth R.
Miller, as well as former apostles in the Latter-day
Saint church including James E. Talmage and John
A. Widtsoe, spring to mind. I, myself, have always
found religion and science to be compatible and
to go hand-in-hand. I do not consider them to be
polar opposites. What I see as a scientist helps me
to appreciate and increase my faith and to find truth
in all aspects of life.
It is a pity that the author chose to end his
otherwise excellent book with a thesis that appears
to antagonize the very groups whom he should be
trying the hardest to reach. Despite my reservations
toward this part of the text, I would recommend it
to individuals who want to learn about evolution
over the past 4.6 billion years on the earth and the
impact of humans on this process. If the earth is
only halfway through its 10-billion year existence,
then humans need to be better stewards if we want
to survive as a species!
-Nina L. Baghai-Riding, Professor of Biology and
Environmental Science, Delta State University.
Historical
Botany and History Entwined: Ra-
chel Hunt’s Legacy
Charlotte A. Tancin, Lugene B. Bruno, Angela
L. Todd, and Donald W. Brown.
2011.
ISBN 978-0-913196-85-4. Pictorial stiff pa-
per cover; 97 pp.; 147 color figures; US $22,
plus S&H, at http://huntbot. andrew.cmu.
edu/HIBD/Publications.
This small volume, the catalogue of an exhibition
(16 Sept-15 Dec 2011), is richly illustrated, and one
Frank A. Reynolds is credited with the reproduction
photography. He deserves credit along with the
authors themselves.
168
Plant Science Bulletin 57(4) 2011
Marianne North: A Very Intrepid
Painter
Michelle Payne, 2011
Kew Publishing
Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew
One does not need to read too far into this book
before running calculations through one’s head to
figure out how Marianne North could have painted
832 paintings in 14 years. Let’s quickly consider the
numbers...
832 paintings in 14 years.
That’s 59.4 paintings per year.
There are 8,760 hours in a year.
In the world of botanical art, 200-hour projects
are not unusual. Let’s assume this is the average
length of time required to complete a painting. This
means one can complete 43.8 paintings per year, or
3.65 paintings per month. It would take 730 hours
to complete 3.65 paintings in one month. In a 30-
day month, there are 720 hours.
In 1871, at the age of 40, Marianne North began
an adventure that would take her to 15 countries.
An amazing feat in her time, and an even more
amazing feat by today’s standards after you consider
the modern conveniences Marianne did not have
at her disposable and the way she must have had
to carry her oil paints and art supplies from place
to place.
You might think Marianne North is a one-of-a-
kind wonder. However, she shares the title of brave
pioneering female naturalist with women such as
Maria Sibylla Merian (1647-1717), who was one
of the first to describe metamorphosis, and Jeanne
Baret (1740-1807), who was the first woman to
circumnavigate the globe and the herb woman
whose expertise as a field botanist made her an
invaluable asset to botanist Philibert Commerson
during the Bougainville expedition (1765-1768).
Marianne North was born in 1830 into a wealthy
family accustomed to frequent travel. In 1871, she
embarked on the first of many excursions to explore
the plants of the world. Between 1871 and 1885, she
traveled to 15 countries and painted the plants and
landscapes of every country she visited.
When Marianne painted her habitat studies,
plant portraits, and botanical still life paintings, she
had an educational objective in mind. Marianne
was concerned about the public’s “ignorance of
plants and botany” (p. 15)—an ignorance that
today falls under the heading of “plant blindness.”
What fed Marianne’s enthusiasm for plants? It
was her plant mentor.
Marianne’s mentor was her father. Marianne
helped care for the plants growing in his greenhouses
and she accompanied him on several visits to the
Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. One of the people
she came to know at Kew was the garden’s director,
Sir William Hooker. Hooker is credited as being
the man who piqued Marianne’s interest in tropical
plants; an interest that fueled her strong desire to
paint the tropical plants of the world.
Even though Marianne had little formal
education, she made several contributions to
botany. These contributions are touched upon
in this absorbing synopsis of Marianne North’s
life written by author and Kew editor, Michelle
Payne. Payne’s careful selection of Marianne’s plant
portraits and habitat paintings complement her
accounts of the pioneering artist’s jaunts across the
globe.
Through engaging storytelling and the inclusion
of excerpts from Marianne’s own memoir, Payne
lures the reader into Marianne’s life and transports
the reader to North America, Jamaica, Brazil,
Tenerife, Japan, Singapore, Borneo, Java, Sri Lanka,
India, Australia, New Zealand, the Seychelles,
and Chile to acquire a sense of what Marianne
experienced in these countries.
Late in the book, Payne takes readers back to
Jamaica and Sri Lanka as she tells the story of a
Kew photographer who set out to find the locations
depicted in Marianne’s paintings from these two
countries.
As fascinating as Marianne’s story is, the story
behind the restoration of the Marianne North
Gallery at Kew (the building) and its famous
contents is just as fascinating. Payne explains what
was involved in the restoration of the 1881 building
built specifically for Marianne’s artwork and paid
for by Marianne herself. Before-and-after photos
of exterior and interior views show how the gallery
has changed and how the recent renovation has
restored the gallery to its 19th-century beginnings.
As the book comes to an end, Payne turns her
attention to Marianne’s 832 paintings and how
they were repaired and prepped for long-term
preservation by a team of conservators who spent
three years working on the paintings—their work
ending only this year in February.
169
Plant Science Bulletin 57(4) 2011
Marianne North: A Very Intrepid Painter is
written for a general audience and is recommended
to anyone with a special interest in natural history
or art. This book is a wonderful resource for
teachers and informal science educators wanting to
incorporate art into their life science curriculum or
interpretive programs.
- Tania Marien, ArtPlantae, education@artplantae.com
The Smallest Kingdom: Plants and
Plant Collectors at the Cape of
Good Hope
Fraser, Mike and Liz Fraser
2011. ISBN 978-1-84246-389-5 (Cloth
£25.00, US$40.00). 220 pp.
Kew Publishing, Royal Botanic Gardens,
Kew, Richmond, Surrey. Available from The
University of Chicago Press, 1427 E. 60th
Street, Chicago, IL 60637.
Fynbos? Karoo? Do these biome names baffle you?
They are carefully defined in The Smallest Kingdom,
a beautifully illustrated, compelling account of
botanical discovery described in language easily
understood by amateurs and technically accurate
to satisfy professionals, about South Africa’s Cape
Floral Kingdom. The Cape is the ancestral home
of numerous familiar cultivated plants, including
Gladiolus, Haemanthus, Pelargonium, and Protea;
these and many other plants that this region has
given to the world’s gardeners are on detailed
display.
Mike and Liz Fraser, whose 12 years’ residence
in South Africa gave rise to this work, bring the
vegetation of the southernmost tip of continental
Africa to life. Liz Fraser’s paintings of flora and
fauna, historical illustrations from Kew and other
major botanical collections, and contemporary
photographs reveal the region’s floral landscapes.
Mike Fraser scoured travelers’ accounts from the
Age of Exploration and, with expert advice from
Kew’s editors, arranged the text and photographs
into a gripping page-turner. Early botanists—
christened “Men of Questionable Sanity”—provide
the title of one chapter. The misadventures and
pitfalls of plant collectors’ experiences are cataloged
(some admittedly exaggerated for audience appeal);
occasionally, the authors have unearthed narratives
of abduction, adultery, and abuse.
A sample of Fraser’s writing introduces readers to
the location: “Bounded to the south by the Indian
Ocean, to the west by the cold Atlantic, and to the
north and east by the almost desert-like expanse of
the Karoo, the south-western Cape represents an
ecological island, isolated and distinct from the rest
of South Africa and the African continent.” Home
to more than 9,000 different plant species, seventy
percent of which are endemic only to the Cape
Floral Kingdom, this small region was designated
a UNESCO World Heritage site in 2004, as well
as a global biodiversity hotspot. During its 250-
year history, the botanical richness of the plants
of the Cape—and, of course, their collectors—
have contributed greatly to the establishment of
the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, as a preeminent
center for botanical research.
Because so many species described here have given
rise to horticultural cultivars, perusing The Smallest
Kingdom will appeal to botanical artists, botanical
historians, gardeners, naturalists, and travelers to
the Cape. Targeted for a generalist audience, the
authors provide limited coverage of only a few
representative species of the region. Specialists,
including this reader, might wish for an additional
comprehensive list of species (or at least plant
families) of the Cape’s unique flora.
-Dorothea Bedigian, Research Associate, Missouri
Botanical Garden, St. Louis
Mycological
The Book of Fungi: A Life-Size
Guide to Six Hundred Species from
Around the World
Peter Roberts and Shelley Evans.
2011.
ISBN 978-0-226-72117-0 (Cloth US$55.00)
656 pp.
University of Chicago Press, 1427 E. 60th
Street, Chicago, Illinois, 60637.
The vast diversity and intrinsic beauty of fungi
are often overlooked, perhaps because we see
fungi every day as the stout, bulbous mushrooms
growing out of the wood, the expansive crusts
blanketing the landscape, or the truffle delicacies
we find at restaurants. Or perhaps it is because they
are associated with decaying matter, sometimes
170
Plant Science Bulletin 57(4) 2011
poisonous, or shrouded in mysterious folklore.
Whatever the case, the brilliantly colored and
crystal clear images found in the Book of Fungi:
A Life-Size Guide to Six Hundred Species from
Around the World, prompt nothing short of awe
for these undeniably bizarre yet ecologically
essential organisms. This book introduces an
array of interesting species by blending the useful
information of a field guide with the spectacular
imagery of a coffee table book. Highlighting both
the visual identifiers for and the unique attributes
of a broad range of fungi, this visually stunning
collection by experienced mycologists Peter
Roberts and Shelley Evans does not disappoint.
It is undoubtedly the illustrations that are this
book’s most striking feature, and the specimens
shown convey the marvelous diversity of fungal
form, sampling species from various regions and
phyla. Not only are the images accurate in size
(which are appropriately labeled if more than
one image is included), but their bold colors also
convey textural details that make each specimen
come alive on the page and give each species
its own personality. The smaller fungi include
magnified images as well, showing gills, veins,
and pores with beautiful clarity. From the glossy
surface of the Jade Pinkgill to the bristly cup of
the Hairy Tropical Goblet, I dare any reader not to
reach out and touch the page. Both common and
rare species are presented with equal individual
attention. From the common Jelly Rot, Tropical
White Polypore, or False Chanterelle species to the
strange and aptly named Orange Golfball Fungus,
the Dalmation-spotted Nail Fungus, or the rare
Coralhead Stinkhorn (something that resembles a
slimy science fiction creature), each is celebrated
and gorgeously depicted.
In addition to its aesthetic value, the Book
of Fungi is logically organized and provides
information about the distribution, growth, and
edibility of each species. The fungi are categorized
by similar morphological features and are divided
into Agarics, Boletes, and a hodgepodge of other
subcategories that include Brackets, Puffballs,
Lichens, Morels, and Earthstars among many
others. The characteristics of each of these groups
are clearly defined along with examples in the
picture guide found in the introduction. This
section also includes a brief overview of fungi,
their functions and symbiotic roles, and tips for
collecting and conservation. Slightly more in-
depth introductions to each category are also
given along the way, which further explain the
distinguishing features. From there, each page takes
you progressively into stranger territory, marveling
at the labyrinthian gills of the Oak Mazegill or the
weeping branches of the Pendant Coral. In species
such as the Devil’s Tooth, Fairy Sparkler, and
Chinese Caterpillar fungus, it is no stretch of the
imagination to see how they earned their common
names. The descriptive captions that accompany
each illustration give additional identification
parameters, noting phenological variations and
mistaken identities to watch out for in the field.
The concisely written descriptions included
with each species complement the illustrations
with intriguing historical, medicinal, and linguistic
anecdotes. The fungi’s most notable features are
described, as well as their changes throughout the
life cycle and relevant information about culinary
usage, distinctive odors, species discovery, bruising
patterns, or unusual behavior. Threatened species
for which conservation is a concern are also
brought to the reader’s attention throughout. To
further alleviate mistaken identity in the field, as
well as to touch on more than just the 600 featured
species, a separate paragraph under the description
is devoted to similar species, which includes
examples from the same genus as well as those
that may just have similar features. Other reference
tools include smaller illustrations located in the side
margins alongside height and diameter dimensions
for easy browsing. A conveniently placed global
distribution map shows growth regions and the
accompanying table lists habitat, growth form,
abundance, spore color, and edibility for each
species. The appendices also feature a glossary, two
indexes to search by scientific or common name,
and several additional resources including regional
field guides and informational websites.
Although each image unequivocally captivates
your attention, many of the fungi are illustrated
from one view only. Some pages are noticeably
sparse and could be filled out in this way with
additional angles to give a more complete picture
of the fruitbodies, caps, or spores. It also seems
spatially wasteful to have two images of nearly
identical specimens shown from the same
viewpoint, as is the case, for example, for Witches’
Butter and Conifer Brain fungi. A greater number
of cross-sectional views could be included,
microscopic images may be a welcome addition,
and illustrating colonies of some species would
be helpful for everyday identification. The family
171
Plant Science Bulletin 57(4) 2011
Plants in Mesozoic Time: Morphological
Innovation, Phylogeny, Ecosystem by Carole T. Gee
is an excellent contribution to the life of the past.
Gee dedicated the volume to her academic father,
Ted Delevoras, one of the leading paleobotanists
in America. She paid tribute to his manifold and
valuable contribution to knowledge of the Mesozoic
flora.
The Mesozoic, about 185 million years ago,
was an age of giant dinosaurs, flying reptiles, and
crown-tufted plants. In the past much less attention
has been given to Mesozoic flora than its fauna. This
detailed book make up for this lack of information
on the Mesozoic flora.
The book, a collection of the latest research by
the world’s top paleobotanists, is divided into three
parts with chapters reflecting the latest research on
a specific plant or plant group. Part one explores
the morphological innovations of Mesozoic plants
including gymnosperms such as Bennettitales,
cycads, and conifers. It also discusses traits in early
Mesozoic sphenophytes such as Spaciinodium
cullinsonii, which is regarded as one of the best
understood members of the group. The last
chapter by Taylor on evolutionary developmental
biology deals with the evolution of flowering
plants, extended over 75 million years and dividing
innovation in six steps.
Part two of this book focuses its attention on the
phylogeny of Mesozoic plants with a discussion
of gymnosperms and dicotyledonous lianas. The
study ranges from Antarctica and Argentina to
North America, including Utah and New Mexico.
The area of study is illustrated with helpful maps at
the beginning of each chapter. Furthermore, light
micrographs of palynomorphs add beauty to this
book. Endemism of Early Cretaceous conifers in
western Gondwana is also discussed.
Part three contains an interesting discussion of
the ecosystem of Mesozoic plants. The palynoflora
of the Morrison Formation is analyzed for a
reconstruction of Jurassic vegetation. The last
chapter sheds light on the evidence for herbivory and
food preferences of dinosaurs. The relationships, of
major groups of dinosaurs, mummified skulls, and
enamel microstructure of dinosaur teeth by SEM
are carefully explained. The role of plants and their
relationship with Mesozoic reptiles are depicted to
help illustrate the Mesozoic ecosystem.
This book will be a valuable reference for
anyone interested in the biology, paleontology,
that each species belongs to is included, and a
chart illustrating current taxonomic classifications
is found in the appendix; however, the chart is
not a complete list and is somewhat difficult to
use. So, someone seeking to locate a particular
species within its phylum and order, especially
those who are visually oriented, may do better to
consult a phylogenetic tree for easier reference.
Despite these minor suggestions, the details of each
illustration and verbal description contribute to a
greatly detailed picture of how and where to find
each species.
Over 1.5 million species of fungi are estimated
to exist, only a small portion of those have been
studied and classified, and only a percentage of
those are described here, but each entry gives cause
for being excited about fungi. The authors have
done an outstanding job of creating a truly visceral
experience of each species, bringing the field into
your home (which is a good thing since this book
is anything but travel sized). Anyone could easily
get lost within this visual bath of fungi, spending
hours perusing through species, wondering what
odd organisms are yet to be discovered on each
following page, and continuously coming back
to discover them all over again. The beautiful
images and detailed descriptions connect the
reader to the pervasive and unusual world of
fungi that exists right beneath our feet; it compels
expert mushroom hunters and novices alike to
explore these fascinating organisms and elicits an
overwhelming urge to take to the field immediately.
This is an excellent addition to the library of anyone
interested in mycology, botany, biology, or just
simply fascinated by the design of nature.
-Lauren Nalepa, University of Southern California.
Paleobotanical
Plants in Mesozoic Time: Morpho-
logical Innovations, Phylogeny,
Ecosystems
Gee, Carole T. (ed.).
2010.
ISBN 978-0-253-35156-3 (Cloth US$89.95)
424 pp.
Indiana University Press, 601 North Morton
St., Bloomington, IN 47404-3797.
172
Plant Science Bulletin 57(4) 2011
and paleobotany of the Mesozoic flora and fauna
including earth and life scientists and academics,
paleontologists, geologists, and environmental
scientists. This very detailed book clearly represents
a lifetime of study by the author and is a valuable
contribution to the literature.
- Arooj Naseer, Department of Botany, University of
Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan.
Systematics
Aloes: The Definitive Guide
Carter, S., J. J. Lavranos, L. E. Newton, and C.
C. Walker.
2011.
ISBN 978-1-84246-439-7 (Cloth US$160.0)
760 pp. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew.
Distributed by University of Chicago Press
1427 E. 60th Street, Chicago, Illinois 60637.
This attractive and abundantly illustrated book
devotes a descriptive page to each of the 500+
species currently recognized for the emblematic
southeast African genus Aloe. It is not a new
treatment of the genus but rather a current view
of its diversity. The work draws on an extensive
scientific literature to which the authors themselves
have contributed substantially. While little in
plant systematics seems to ever be truly definitive,
the authors use this term with serious intentions,
appending several pages of illustrated addenda that
include names added or changed in the brief period
since the book was assembled.
With infragenetic relationships still poorly
understood, this work sorts out Aloe species into 10
habit/form groups, and organizes those within each
group in order of increasing size of the plant. This
system may seem a bit arbitrary, and individual
users will decide for themselves whether it serves
their needs better than would, say, an alphabetical
ordering of species within each group. Individual
species can in any case be found via the index, and
keys are provided to group and to species within
each group.
A great many photographic illustrations
accompany the species descriptions, many or most
taken in situ with beautiful, stark landscapes as a
backdrop. This is a great advantage to the many
readers who will not otherwise have an opportunity
to see the plants in their natural habitats. On the
other hand, it is also apparent that the harsh, high-
contrast light in these sun-drenched environments
does not always make for optimal photographs.
The book also includes an exceptional amount
of information —over 70 pages—on the history of
botanical work on the genus, again with numerous
illustrations of original source material and the
botanists and explorers who collected and studied
them. This is not necessarily dry reading, as
searching for aloes can be more hair-raising than
one might expect. One collector, we learn, was
killed by a charging elephant in Ethiopia; another
had to abort an excursion when his vehicle was
destroyed by a leaping kudu. Although the
introductory pages are extensive, they are dedicated
almost exclusively to the botanical history of the
genus. The appeal of this handsome book might
reach a broader botanical public if it included a
little more general information on other salient
aspects of aloe biology, such as anatomical features
of these leaf succulent plants, the kind of secondary
growth that occurs in the arborescent species, and
whether aloes have CAM photosynthesis. There
are also three brief paragraphs on cosmetic and
medicinal uses of aloes (some aloes are poisonous,
we learn, and have even been used traditionally to
poison hyenas). Regrettably little detail is provided;
mention is made, for example, of the Socotran aloes
of commerce, but we are not told what exactly they
are used for, or what compounds are involved.
The target public for this impressive work is
clearly one focused on identification of aloes and
appreciation of their diversity. Those with such
interests will not wish to do without this guide.
-William B. Sanders, Department of Biological Sci-
ences, Florida Gulf Coast University.
A Field Guide to the Ferns and Lyco-
phytes of Louisiana
Neyland, Ray.
ISBN 978-0-8071-3785-7. (Paper $23.95).
104 pages.
Louisiana State University Press, Baton
Rouge. 2011.
The diverse pteridophyte flora of Louisiana,
one of the richest in North America, has been
the subject of three books. Neyland’s is the most
recent and the shortest. The first is the treatment
173
Plant Science Bulletin 57(4) 2011
by Brown and Correll (1942). Their book is a
period piece covering the history of pteridophyte
research, propagation, morphology, and economic
importance (the two species of Osmunda harvested
for growing orchids). A detailed key and very
Fernaldian descriptions make up the bulk of the
book—helpful and germane almost 70 years later.
More recent is the book by Thieret (1980),
which, like its predecessor, is out of print. This is
unfortunate as it is an excellent treatment of ferns
and fern allies providing a cogent introduction to
the group, their cultivation, and other topics covered
in Brown and Correll. It would be an excellent text
for a beginning course in pteriodology. All of the
taxa are illustrated with line drawings and, unlike
the other two books, there are maps showing the
distribution by parish.
A Field Guide to the Ferns and Lycophytes of
Louisiana is the Reader’s Digest version of the
earlier books, which makes sense since the serious
student of the state’s pteridophytes would know the
1942 and 1980 volumes. Unlike the first two, this
is truly a field guide—easily fitting into a backpack.
The plan of the book is simple. Plants are
arranged alphabetically by family, then by genus and
species. Updated nomenclature is used so that the
euphonius Pseudolycopodiella caroliniana replaces
Lycopodium carolinianum. The treatment for each
species includes a single photograph of the plant.
Image quality is good but often does not show the
important characters, and overall the pictures are
too small, leaving much of the page blank. Instead,
diagnostic features are provided in the short, terse
descriptions that include origin (exotic or native),
habitat, and growth form. Lycopodiella prostrata is
described as a sub-shrub, a growth habit that does
not occur in clubmosses. Interesting tidbits about
each species, including many Native American
uses, are given.
Following the species treatment are keys to the
genera and then a key to the species within each
genus. An illustrated glossary is included which is
generally helpful though the ligule for Selaginella
is not labeled. The putative hybrid origin of Isoetes
louisianensis, a federally endangered species, is
noted but with no reference to the thousands of
individuals found in Louisiana and Mississippi
since it was originally described. The ligule is
lacking in the diagram of the Isoetes sporophylls
as is any reference to a velum. The second part
of the glossary is four pages of terms followed by
references and a helpful index.
This compact volume will be useful for anyone
interested in the ferns and fern allies of Louisiana
and contiguous states. For more in-depth
information, though often dated, I recommend one
of the earlier books.
Literature Cited
BROWN, C. A. AND CORRELL, D. S. 1942. Ferns
and Fern Allies of Louisiana. Baton Rouge:
Louisiana State University Press.
THIERET, J. W. 1980. Louisiana Ferns and Fern
Allies. Lafayette, LA: Layfayette Natural
History Museum.
-Lytton John Musselman, Department of Biologi-
cal Sciences, Old Dominion University, Norfolk,
Virginia 23529-0266.
Wildflowers and Plant Communi-
ties of the Southern Appalachian
Mountains and Piedmont: A Natu-
ralist’s Guide to the Carolinas,
Virginia, Tennessee, and Georgia
Spira, Timothy P.
2011.
ISBN 978-0-8078-3440-4 (Cloth US$50.00)
540 pp.
The University of North Carolina Press, 116
South Boundary Street, Chapel Hill, NC
27514-3808.
Like so many biologists who love to be in the
field, I have mixed feelings about many field guides
written for popular audiences. While I find them
useful on some level, I am always disappointed in
something. Most focus on species identification,
yet diversity and evolutionary relationships are
short-changed while ecology and community
relationships rarely amount to more than a
statement here and there on habitats for various
species. Nevertheless such guides draw many
budding scientists into the field, and they act as an
entry point for the lay public into natural history—
plus they often have great photographs. On the
flip side, there are many guides to various natural
areas, but they tend to lack information that would
help users identify plants. Recently, some have
tried to cover both areas of interest by writing
identification guides with an ecological bent or
174
Plant Science Bulletin 57(4) 2011
vice versa. While this approach has great appeal,
the earliest attempts that I recall were disappointing
as they attempted too much and succeeded at too
little. Clemson University botanist Timothy Spira’s
new work, Wildflowers and Plant Communities of
the Southern Appalachian Mountains and Piedmont
deserves great credit as it advances this holistic
approach to field guides. Because he focuses on the
ecology of more exclusive groups of organisms in
a more exclusive geographic range, it is a dramatic
improvement over many of the earlier works. It
deserves a good look from individuals interested
in natural history, plant communities and diversity,
and conservation. I should mention that a similar
approach was taken by Porcher and Rayner (2001),
also with good results, but with a slightly different
geographical approach. Because Spira’s work is
written with more of an educated popular audience
than a professional audience in mind, this review
focuses more on utility and accuracy than on
completeness.
The guide is divided into four parts: Introduction,
Photo Key, Plant Community Profiles, and Species
Profiles. The 25-page introduction presents
information on how to use the book and taxonomy.
It is followed by two chapters introducing the
regions covered by the book, ranging from the
southern Appalachians from southwest Virginia,
western North Carolina, northwestern South
Carolina, east Tennessee, and Georgia, into the
Piedmont, east to the Fall Line, where the coastal
plain begins. The coastal plain is not covered in
this work. These chapters describe the important
factors affecting vegetation, including conservation
concerns. The chapter on the Appalachian
Mountains includes discussions of physiographic
provinces, the effects of glaciation, and the high
level of diversity in the southern Appalachians. The
chapter on the Piedmont focuses more on the role
that humans have played, with a strong emphasis
on agriculture, development, and fire suppression.
The introduction concludes with a chapter that
introduces plant community ecology, including
discussions of diversity, succession, disturbances,
and factors that determine community types.
Part Two is the photo key, which is 70 pages
long and consists of a three- to four- page entry for
each community with a thumbnail gallery of the
important species in that community. Each species
is represented by a single photograph, approximately
3.5 cm by 3.5 cm, and there are 30 to 45 species
pictured for each community. The photographs
are arranged with the trees first, followed by
shrubs and vines, followed by herbaceous plants.
Within each of these three groups, the species
are in alphabetical order by scientific name. The
photographs are linked by photograph and page
number to the description of that species later in
the book. Unfortunately, there is no page number
listed for the detailed plant community description
in Part Three of the text.
Plant community descriptions, each five to six
pages long, comprise Part Three. Each description
begins with a vegetation photograph, includes
a species list, and describes the vegetation and
other characteristics that can aid in identification
of the community. The descriptions also discuss
the factors that control the vegetation and the
geographic distribution of the community. A few
of the species in the list are not within the text,
but those are noted. Each community description
concludes with a list of references for suggested
readings.
Each community description also includes a
box that explores one of many important topics
to plant ecology. They include discussions of
the southeastern North American/southeastern
Asian species pairs, rivers as dispersal agents,
and adaptations that plants have to the mountain
environments. While the topics are not necessarily
related to the community where they are placed,
they are a good addition to the book in my opinion.
Section Four is Species Profiles, the longest
section of the text at approximately 250 pages.
Each species profile includes a slightly larger
version of the image in the Photo Key and a two-
thirds page description of the species. The entry
includes notes on habitat range, taxonomy, ecology,
wildlife relationships, and uses of the plants. The
taxonomy paragraphs often tell how many species
are in a genus other than the one listed, and they
often give good identification hints, but I’m not
sure these really qualify as “taxonomy.” Multiple
species within a genus might be better served with
a single taxonomy section that helps distinguish
members. Synonyms are given at the end of the
species descriptions, but not in the taxonomy
section. My biggest criticism is within this section.
Besides a few botanical inaccuracies (e.g., referring
to the ovuliferous cones of Juniperus as “fruits”), the
section is arranged in the same artificial manner as
the photo gallery pictures: trees, shrubs and woody
vines, and herbs. Within each growth type, species
are arranged alphabetically by scientific name, but
175
Plant Science Bulletin 57(4) 2011
a more natural arrangement would aid users who
would leaf through the section to learn closely
related species.
While I find the book to be very useful, small
changes such as those above could make it more
user friendly. Additionally, while the photos are
accurate and high quality, they lack any indication
of scale or the season when they were taken. A
larger number of photographs for each species
would definitely increase the book’s utility. The
other main weakness is in the area of references.
Besides the three to five references at the end of
each community description, there is a good list of
reference materials at the end of the book, but no
citations within the text.
Overall, I rate this book to be a good resource
for anyone interested in learning about the plant
communities of the southern Appalachians and the
Piedmont. I like the approach the author has taken,
and I enjoy using it myself.
Literature Cited
PORCHER, R. D. AND D. A. RAYNER. 2001.
A Guide to the Wildflowers of South Carolina.
University of South Carolina Press: Columbia, SC.
-Douglas P. Jensen, Biology Department, Converse
College, Spartanburg, South Carolina 29302.
Wetland Plants of the Adirondacks:
Book 1: Ferns, Woody Plants and
Graminoids
Wu, Meiyin and Dennis Kalma.
2011.
ISBN 978--42696-057-4 (Cloth US$25.00)
183 pp.
Wetland Plants of the Adirondacks:
Book 2: Herbaceous Plants and
Aquatic Plants
ISBN 978-1-426 96-062-8
(Cloth US$25.00)
169 pp.
Trafford Publishing, 1663 Liberty Drive,
Bloomington, IN 47403.
Wu and Kalma’s guides contain descriptions of
312 wetland plants found in the field. The concept
for these books is great: provide an easy-to-use
tool to identify these commonly found plants.
The execution of this concept, however, could use
some work. The books, published through Trafford
Publishing, unfortunately illustrate some of the
concerns with self-publishing as the books contain
some questionable illustrations and could use some
more editing.
Some of the issues I have with the books are
trivial. For instance, the introductions for both
books are identical; they both refer to themselves
as “the first of two books.” Some of the family
names do not reflect the changes made by APG III
(2009), which takes into account recent molecular
evidence. To be fair though, the USDA PLANTS
Database (2011) has not yet adopted the new
classification either. Other minor issues include
some typos, which gives me the impression that
these books were rushed to print. I would also like
to see which species are native and non-native to
the Adirondacks, something these books do not
identify. On the topic of non-native species, the
books do not include European frogbit (Hydrocharis
morsus-ranae, Hydrocharitaceae), a non-native
wetland plant that has become highly abundant
in the Adirondacks over the past few decades. It
would also be nice to have some Adirondacks-
related content in the book such as a map, a list of
wetland sites to visit, or information about species
distributions in the region. If anything, having
a title that suggests these books are only useful
in the Adirondacks actually limits the authors’
potential audience, while at the same time serving
as a disappointment to anyone hoping to learn
something specific about the Adirondack flora.
It is a little unclear what the target audience
for these books is. The back cover states that the
books are geared towards “the naturalist and field
worker,” yet the introduction suggests a broader
audience with “no botanical training.” The books
successfully explain much of the terminology
used in identifying species, and descriptions are
easy to understand for any layperson. However,
certain information included in the books might
not be very clear to people without some wetland
experience. For example, the books include the
wetland indicator status for each species (which is
great); however, they do not explain what the codes
mean. Someone with no experience with wetlands
would not likely know what a status of FACW+
176
Plant Science Bulletin 57(4) 2011
means without an explanation included somewhere
in the books.
The quality of illustrations ranges from mediocre
to poor. On the last page of Book 1 (incorrectly
numbered as page 133), the authors list 54
graminoid species and state that the illustrations
for them are uncopyrighted and taken from the
USDA website. While it is true that the images are
uncopyrighted material, the USDA does suggest
that the artist and original publication (which
they provide) be given credit, which is not done.
Strangely, aside from the 54 graminoid species
listed, the majority of the other illustrations are
taken from the USDA PLANTS Database as well.
It is unclear why only the graminoid species are
listed. What is even more unsettling is that those
illustrations not taken from the USDA seem
to be lower-quality traces of other well-known
sources such as Newcomb’s (1977), Crow and
Hellquist (2000), Flora of North America (2002),
or combinations of these and USDA illustrations.
These illustrations are not cited in the books, which
raises some ethical questions. However, both books
can be found in an online form (available at: http://
research.plattsburgh.edu/wetlandmonitoring/Plant
ID manual/plantindex.html), which does include
citations for the illustrations.
Aside from these flaws, some of which may be
borderline nitpicking, these books can be pretty
useful. The format of the books is simple and
effective. A short dichotomous key directs readers
to different sections of the books, which they then
must flip through until they find a match between
an illustration and the plant they hope to identify.
Taking the books (which are light and thin) into
the field, I was able to successfully identify most
of the species that I attempted. The one exception
was between northern and southern water plantain
(Alisma triviale and A. subcordatum, Book 2,
page 16). Wu and Kalma list A. subcordatum as
having larger flowers than A. triviale. According
to Clemants and Gracie (2006) and Gleason and
Cronquist (1991), it is the other way around.
If the illustrations were improved on (and cited)
and the other details listed above corrected, I would
say that these would be good books for students,
nature enthusiasts, and field workers alike. If the
authors also added some interesting factoids about
each species, I would say that the books would be
“must haves.” Sadly, in their current state, I will
not be replacing my current stock of field guides
with these, even if my backpack ends up being
heavier. Hopefully a new edition will correct these
problems.
Literature Cited
APG III. 2009. An update of the Angiosperm
Phylogeny Group classification for the orders
and families of flowering plants: APG III. Bot. J.
Linn. Soc. 161: 105-121.
CLEMENTS, S., and C. GRACIE. 2006. Wildflowers
in the Field and Forest: A Field Guide to the
Northeastern United States. Oxford University
Press, New York.
CROW, G. E., and C. B. HELLQUIST. 2000.
Aquatic and Wetland Plants of Northeastern
North America, Vol. One & Vol. Two. University
of Wisconsin Press, Madison.
FLORA OF NORTH AMERICA EDITORIAL
COMMITTEE. 2002. Flora of North America,
Volume 26: Magnoliophyta: Liliidae: Liliales and
Orchidales. Oxford University Press, NY.
GLEASON, H.A., and A. CRONQUIST. 1991.
Manual of Vascular Plants of Northeastern
United States and Adjacent Canada. 2nd ed.
New York Botanical Garden, NY.
NEWCOMB, L. 1977. Newcomb’s Wildflower Guide.
Little, Brown and Company, Boston, MA.
USDA, NRCS. 2011. The PLANTS Database (http://
plants.usda.gov, 6 September 2011.). National
Plant Data Team, Greensboro, NC
-Timothy Shearman, Natural Sciences Graduate
Program, State University of New York (SUNY)
Plattsburgh
177
Plant Science Bulletin 57(4) 2011
Wildflower Wonders showcases the most spectacular displays
of wild blooms on the planet, from infrequent flowerings in
the Mojave and other deserts to regular but no less stunning
alpine wildflower “events” in Italy, South Africa, and Australia.
This magnificently illustrated volume features 200 panoramic,
full-color photographs as well as a color map for every site and
at-a-glance information panels that highlight the kinds of flowers
at each location and the best times to see them in bloom. The
informative text gives a botanical profile of each location, and
also describes the ecology and conservation status of these sites
and the animal life to be found at them.
Cloth $27.95 978-0-691-15229-5
Wildflower
Wonders
The 50 Best Wildflower
Sites in the World
Bob Gibbons
With a foreword by
Richard Mabey
See our E-Books at
press.princeton.edu
press.princeton.edu
178
21st Century Guidebook to Fungi. Moore, David, Geoffrey D. Robson, and Anthony P.J. Trinci.
2011. ISBN 978-0-521-18695-7 (Paper US$65.00) 626 pp. Cambridge University Press, 32 Avenue of
the Americas, New York, NY 10013.
Aquatic Plants of Pennsylvania: A Complete Reference Guide. Block, Timothy A., and Ann Fowler
Rhoads. 2011. ISBN 978-0-8122-4306-2 (Cloth US$59.95) 400 pp. University of Pennsylvania Press,
Penn Press Warehouse, P.O. Box 50370, Baltimore, MD 21211.
The Biology of Island Floras. Bramwell, David, and Juli Caujapé-Castells (eds.). 2011. ISBN 978-0-
521-11808-8 (Cloth US$120.00) 522 pp. Cambridge University Press, 32 Avenue of the Americas, New
York, NY 10013.
Early Flowers and Angiosperm Evolution. Friis, Else Marie, Peter R. Crane, and Kaj Raunsgaard
Pedersen. 2011. ISBN 978-0-521-59283-3 (Cloth US$160.00) 585 pp. Cambridge University Press, 32
Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10013.
Guide to the Flowers of Western China. Wilson-Grey, Christopher, and Phillip Crib. 2011. ISBN
798-1-64246-169-3 (Cloth US$115.00) 642 pp. Royal Botanic Gardens Kew. Available from The
University of Chicago Press, 1427 E. 60th Street, Chicago, IL 60637.
The Last Great Plant Hunt: The Story of the Millennium Seed Bank Project. 2011. Fry, Carolyn,
Sue Seddon, and Gail Vines. 2011. ISBN 978-1-84246-432-8 (Cloth US$45.00) 192 pp. Royal Botanic
Gardens Kew. Available from The University of Chicago Press, 1427 E. 60th Street, Chicago, IL 60637.
Medicinal Plants in Australia: Volume 2: Gums, Resins, Tannin and Essential Oils. Williams,
Cheryll. 2011. ISBN 978-1-87705-894-3 (Cloth US $69.95) 344 pp. Rosenberg Publishing. Available
from International Specialized Book Services, 920 NE 58th Ave. Suite 300, Portland, OR 97213.
Size- and Age-Related Changes in Tree Structure and Function. Meinzer, Frederick C., Barbara
Lachenbruch, and Todd E. Dawson (eds.). 2011. ISBN 978-94-007-1241-6 (Cloth US$209.00) 510 pp.
Springer Science + Business Media, 333 Meadowlands Parkway, Secaucus, NJ 07094.
The Smallest Kingdom: Plants and Plant Collectors at the Cape of Good Hope. Fraser, Mike, and
Liz Fraser. 2011. ISBN 978-1-84246-389-5 (Cloth US$46.00) 220 pp. Royal Botanic Gardens Kew.
Available from The University of Chicago Press, 1427 E. 60th Street, Chicago, IL 60637.
Tree-ring Research in Asia. Pumijumnong, Nathsuda, Qi-Bin Zhang, Dieter Eckstein, and Pieter Baas
(eds.). 2009. (Paper US$35.00) 112 pp. International Association of Wood Anatomists, P.O. Box 9514,
2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands.
Wood Science for Promoting Legal Timber Harvest. Wiedenhoeft, Alex C., and Pieter Baas (eds.).
2011. (Paper US$35.00) 176 pp. International Association of Wood Anatomists, P.O. Box 9514, 2300
RA Leiden, The Netherlands.
Books Received
179
Jenny Archibald
Nina Baghai-Riding
Beverly Brown
G. E. Burrows
Root Gorelick
Carol Hotton
Lee Kass
Bruce Kirchoff
Christopher T. Martine
Elizabeth Schussler
Julian Shaw
Vassiliki B. Smocovitis
Marshall D. Sundberg
Nicholas Tippery
Lisa Wallace
Carolyn Wetzel
John Wiersema
Plant Science Bulletin
Reviewers
Thank you for your contributions to this year’s
Plant Science Bulletin - Volume 57
Botany ranks high among the sciences because plants provide:
“…the principle subsistence of life to man and beast, delicious
varieties for our tables, refreshments from our orchards, the adorn-
ments of our flower-borders, shade and perfume for our groves,
materials for our buildings, or medicaments for our bodies.”
Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Cooper, October 7, 1814.
180
Botany 2012 will be held in Columbus, Ohio, at the Greater Columbus Convention Center. The theme
of this year’s meeting, “Botany, the Next Generation,” focuses both on new techniques of importance to
our members as well as fostering growth and participation in our student members, who are becoming
more and more important as student representatives on our committees.
Participating societies at Botany 2012 are the American Bryological and Lichenological Society,
Canadian Botanical Association/L’Association Botanique du Canada, American Fern Society, American
Society of Plant Taxonomists, International Association for Plant Taxonomy, and the Botanical Society
of America.
The Program Committee met in Columbus recently to inspect our meeting facilities, meet the on-
site staff, coordinate programs, and plan events for our upcoming meeting. Downtown Columbus and
the surrounding natural areas in Ohio offer tremendous opportunities for a memorable meeting this
year. The convention center and attached space in the Hyatt Regency offer beautiful and state-of-the-art
facilities for our meeting. The rooms are spacious and are serviced by professional staff who will quickly
attend to any needs that may arise to ensure a seamless set of events. The hotel and convention space are
immediately adjacent to each other, and contain restaurants and nearby shops. Downtown Columbus is
ideal for evening socializing, with many restaurants, bars with outdoor seating, and entertainment venues.
Ohio has noted natural areas and our field trip schedule is taking shape with field trips suiting
attendees in all of our diverse disciplines. We are making every effort to have wonderful field trips led by
professionals fully knowledgeable in the plants and sites under their direction.
Our symposia and colloquia are taking shape and are currently listed on the conference website, as
well as noted speakers. This year’s Sunday evening Plenary speaker is Peter Crane who will address our
conference theme.
Botany 2011 experienced record levels of student involvement, and Botany 2012: The Next Generation
is gearing up to be a great meeting with many opportunities for students to network and socialize. The
Short North district of downtown Columbus is an art-centric portion of the city with a great nightlife,
bars, unique restaurants, boutique fashion and vintage shops, and art galleries. This year, Saturday
evening coincides with the Short North Gallery Hop. The Gallery Hop draws thousands of visitors each
month, with many shops and bars remaining open later into the evening, and marks the opening of the
monthly exhibits at each gallery. Forthcoming email updates will include information about the Student
Involvement event and Graduate Student Mixer. Columbus is a vibrant, eclectic city that is sure to be the
host of a great conference. Hope to see you all there!
Abstract submission will begin on February 2 and close April 1, and we will keep you posted of this
date and other activities and speakers as the meeting planning progress. We look forward to seeing you
in Columbus this summer!
Keep checking the conference website for details as they evolve! www.botanyconference.org
David Spooner
BSA Program Coordinator
Any questions - please feel free to contact Johanne Stogran (johanne@botany.org)
July 7 - 11, 2012
Plant Science Bulletin
Featured Image
Winter 2011 Volume 57 Number 4
Plant Science
Bulletin
ISSN 0032-0919
Published quarterly by
Botanical Society of America, Inc.
4475 Castleman Avenue
St. Louis, MO 63166-0299
Periodicals postage is paid at St.
Louis, MO and additional mailing
offices.
POSTMASTER:
Send address changes to:
Botanical Society of America
Business Office
P.O. Box 299
St. Louis, MO 63166-0299
bsa-manager@botany.org
The yearly subscription rate of $15 is
included in the membership
Address Editorial Matters (only) to:
Marshall D. Sundberg
Editor
Department of Biological Sciences
Emporia State University
1200 Commercial St.
Emporia, KS 66801-5057
Phone 620-341-5605
psb@botany.org
The Botanical Society of
America is a membership
society whose mission is to:
promote botany, the field of
basic science dealing with the
study and inquiry into the form,
function, development, diversity,
reproduction, evolution, and uses
of plants and their interactions
within the biosphere.|
.......Keeps on Growing
In the photo (left to right) are:
Katie Enger (ASPB), Catrina Adams (BSA), Claire
Hemingway (BSA), Crispin Taylor (ASPB), Teresa Mourad
(ESA), Adam Fagan (ASPB), Marsh Sundberg (BSA), Larry
Griffing (ASPB), Beverly Brown (BSA), Bill Dahl (BSA),
Carol Stuessey Dickson (TA&M), Rob Brandt (BSA), and
Tom Meager (SSE). Not shown are Pat Harrison (BRIT) and
Jane Larson (BSCS).
Also participating via Skype included: Anton Baudoin
(American Phytopathological Society), Betty Carvellas
(National Academies), Erin Dolan (ASPB), Sam Donovan
(AIBS), Karen Kellison (James Madison University), David
Lindbo (Soil Science Society of America), Valdine McLean
(Pershing County High School), Kevin Ong (APS), Colleen
McLinn (Cornell Lab of Ornithology), Kenneth Newbury
(University of Toledo), Sheila Voss (MBG), and Bob Coulter
(MBG).
A recent summit was held to further
the collaboration efforts of the
plantingscience
Steering Committee.
July 7-11, 2012
Let’s
together!
Symposia, Posters, Workshops, Field Trips and more...
Registration and Abstract Submission - early 2012
www.botanyconference.org
The Annual Meeting of these
premier scientific societies
Make your plans now !!
Greater Columbus Convention Center
Columbus, Ohio
View PDF
